MD AHSANULLAH KHAN Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the parties.

(2.) Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the order dated 11.05.2016 passed by respondent No. 2, whereby the claim of the petitioner for appointment has been rejected on the ground of non-availability of vacancies. Further prayer has been made for a direction upon the respondents to consider his claim for appointment to Class-III/IV post, in view of the fact that the petitioner is a displaced person of Kharkai Dam Project and in spite of his application for appointment, he is being forced to work as daily wage worker in the said dam project.

(3.) The factual exposition as has been delineated in the writ petition is that the State Govt. came out with a plan to construct Katri Dam for which it required lands, and the same was acquired from local people including the petitioner, who is resident of Village Kotam, District Gumla. As per the government policy, one member of displaced family, whose lands were acquired, was eligible for employment in lieu of land. As such, the petitioner applied for his appointment but as there was no regular post available at that time, the petitioner was given temporary employment and his name for regular appointment had been recommended through letter dated 20.09.2002. Petitioner has passed intermediate examination and thus, he is otherwise also eligible for appointment on Class-III/ IV post. The Executive Engineer, Gumla Circle vide his letter dated 12.08.2002, forwarded the application of the petitioner along with required documents to the Superintending Engineer, Waterways Circle, Gumla for needful. Thereafter, on 23.01.2004, a letter has been issued from the respondent No. 2 directing the respondent No. 3 to forward the application of the petitioner and other displaced persons so that appropriate action could be taken in pursuance of government policy. The petitioner was continuously working on temporary basis and his claim for regular appointment had once again been forwarded before the respondent-authorities for his regular appointment, which is also evident from letter dated 08.03.2006, however, no action was taken on the said letter. Thereafter, on continued pursuance of the case, the respondent-authorities issued letter dated 03.08.2010, whereby the claim of the petitioner for regular appointment had been placed before the department and guidelines had also been sought so that necessary action could be taken in the matter. It is the further case of the petitioner that the respondents vide letter dated 18.04.2011, asked certain information regarding employment of the petitioner, which was replied vide letter dated 04.05.2011. From perusal of the aforesaid two letters it is evident that petitioner had been found eligible in all matter for regular appointment but inspite of that his application had been kept pending.