RAKESH SINGH Vs. HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is seeking appointment with respondents. The claim is based on a notification issued by the State Government on 3rd of June 1988. This is SRO 181. In this notification it was provided that when land of an owner is acquired then one member of the family who is left with 50% or less of their agricultural holding would be given Government job. Petitioner submits that the Government has acquired land of his father and therefore, he is entitled to the benefit of above SRO 181. The fact that one Tilak Singh had been given appointment in pursuance of the above SRO has been highlighted. Respondents have filed objections. Petition admitted. With the consent of parties it is taken up for final disposal. Stand taken by the State is to the effect that SRO is no longer in force. Notification in question stands rescinded vide SRO No. 214 issued on 11th of July l991 saving clause protects rights of those employees who had been given appointment. In case of such person their appointments remain intact. The stand taken by the State is that as SRO 181 is no longer in force and as it was rescinded on 11th of July 1991, therefore, it has no obligation to offer any appointment to the petitioner.

(2.) SO far as respondents No. l to 4 are concerned their stand is that notification issued by the State Government is not applicable to them. It is stated that under SRO No. 181 a person can seek appointment with State. As respondents No. 1 to 4 are not covered by the notification therefore, no writ of mandamus can be issued.

(3.) PETITIONER submits that the respondents No. 1 to 4 are instrumentality of the State and therefore, they are equally bound by the notification issued by the State Government. Observations made by the Bombay High Court in case reported as Nachane Ashiwni Shivram and others, AIR 1998 Bombay 1. (Full Bench) are being passed into Service. It is stated that the instrumentality of the State is equally bound by rules and regulations framed by the State Government. 2. So far as the relief against the respondents No. 1 to 4 is concerned, the assertion that they are not covered by SRO 181 and appointment if any should be given by the State Government is concerned it is a stand to which no exception can be taken. The policy has been framed by the State. It is rightly suggested that the petitioner is not entitled to claim a writ of mandamus against the respondents can be issued.