MOHD JALIL ANSARI Vs. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIALTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner is praying for providing employment to him by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on the ground of being the son of a displaced person, when the agricultural land belonging to the father of the petitioner had been acquired by the respondent-authority and even once he was called for interview and after selection, he had also been put up in medical examination where he was found fit but then also he was not provided employment on this plea or that plea.

(2.) This petitioner came to this Court earlier in CWJC No. 584 of 1991 (R) and the same was disposed of by a Division Bench by order dated 29.4.1991 permitting the petitioner to withdraw his petition on the basis of the statements made by counsel for the respondents to enable the petitioner to file a fresh detailed representation, which was to be decided on merit by the respondents. Thereafter the petitioner filed fresh representation, but his prayer was rejected on the ground that he could not be able to file/produce the award in L.A. Case No. 12-R(V) of 1983-84, by which the land belonging to the father of the petitioner was acquired by the respondents. After such observation as made in Annexure-4, in the reply to the representation of the petitioner, the award which was wanting was submitted by the petitioner showing that acquisition was made in respect of the 0.2 acre of land vide Khata No. 32, plot No. 32 in the L.A. Case No. 12-R (V) of 1983-84, but still then the respondents-authorities are not coming up to provide employment to the petitioner when he was found to be fit medically and because of non-providing of employment the petitioner is ageing and he would not be entitled to employment anywhere else, if his case is not favourably considered from the side of the respondents for an employment as an unskilled labour.

(3.) In the counter-affidavit, it is stated that the petitioner was making hectic attempts for his employment on the basis of acquisition of the lands of the father of the petitioner and other co-sharers. The three attempts made by the petitioner proved futile. As against the award of other L.A. cases, employment have been provided to one of the ward of the persons whose lands have been acquired. The fourth attempt is in respect of employment with respect to the Award in L.A. 12-R (V) 1983-84. According to the respondents, the award was issued on 2.6.1987 and the panel of selected candidates where the petitioner's name was included had already been expired on 29.1.1986 and as such the petitioner is not entitled for any such appointment as by this time whole scheme has been stopped because of the embargo on the new recruitment