SUSHIL KUMAR KISKU Vs. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Rahul Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sunil Kr. Dubey on behalf of Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned senior counsel for the respondent-SAIL.

(2.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has sought for direction upon the respondents for quashing the order dated 09.05.2004 passed by the respondent-General Manager in pursuance to the order dated 28.01.2004 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.279 of 2004. The petitioner has further prayed for direction upon the respondents for appointment as per the seniority of the persons of Category-I of displaced person.

(3.) The brief facts as has been disclosed in the writ application is that earlier the petitioner being displaced person for not appointed under the Land Looser Scheme, approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) 279 of 2004 and the said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 28.01.2004 with a liberty to the petitioner to move the competent authority who shall consider the case and pass appropriate orders, in pursuance thereto vide order dated 08.05.2004 Annexure-12 to the writ application, the claim of the petitioner for appointment as a displaced person in Bokaro Steel Plant, has been rejected which is impugned in this writ application.