INDER PRASAD Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

(2.) THE petitioner has filed this writ application for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner either in Class -III or Class -IV posts in terms of the Resolution dated 18.9.1993 (Annexure -3), whereby it has been resolved that the persons, whose land and the dwelling house were acquired, will be given priority in the matter of employment either in Class -III or Class -IV post.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that pursuant to Resolution, when the employment was not given to the petitioner, he did move to this Court vide C.W.J.C. No. 927 of 1998(R) which was disposed of on 1.9.1999 directing the respondent -Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Ranchi to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment against Class -III/Class -IV post in terms with the resolution dated 18.9.1993, if he is found to be displaced persons whose land/house was acquired for the purpose of Konar Canal Project. It was also directed that while considering the case of the petitioner for appointment, preference should be given to him over the outsiders. However, the Authority on being approached, rejected the claim of the petitioner on the plea that the petitioner does come within Category -IV, but this finding IS quite illegal, as Annexure -1, a report of the Anchal Adhikari, and also Annexure -2, again a report of the Anchal Adhikari submitted to Executive Engineer, would go to show that some land has been acquired for the purpose of the construction of Konar Canal and the petitioner does have 0.01 acres of land and as such he has been described as landless but still the case of the petitioner for appointment on the said post was not considered and thereby the Authority committed illegality.