Anna Rani Majhi & Anr vs State Of West Bengal & Ors

Shampa Sarkar, J

Learned Advocate for the Corporation Files the affidavit‐in‐ opposition and the same is kept on record.

This writ petition has been filed claiming appointment of the petitioner No.2 under the Damodar Valley Corporation (in short DVC) in the land loser category. The petitioner No.1 inherited the concerned land, which was acquired by the Government of West Bengal, for installation of a Thermal Power Station by the DVC. The entire land of late Saktipada Mondal which was acquired was inherited by eight legal heirs including the petitioner No.1. Out of eight legal heirs seven of them were given employment by the DVC under the land loser scheme. The petitioner No.1 applied. Subsequently, the petitioner No.1 nominated the petitioner No.2. Thereafter the petitioner No.2 was also married. The petitioners are aggrieved by non‐consideration of their candidatures for employment in the DVC under the land loser scheme.

The respondents have taken a specific plea that both the petitioners failed to apply in the prescribed format. Next, it has been contended that neither of the petitioners fulfilled the eligibility criteria.

The eligibility criteria as per the scheme is quoted below:

"2. Qualification & Age:‐

a. The names of the affected persons who will successfully cross the eligibility criteria as noted under (1), must have minimum educational qualification of class - VIII pass from recognised school. The minimum educational qualification will not apply to his/her case but also equally apply to the case of the nominee also.

b. The persons being so eligible must be within the age limit of 18 yrs. to 45 yrs. as on 1.1.95.

c. The criteria as noted under (a) & (b) being equal, the seniority in age will get due preference.

If any person successfully crosses/fulfils the conditions as laid down in eligibility criteria under (1) & (2) the question of gainfully employed in the M.T.P.P. or elsewhere by the member of his family would be taken into consideration. The persons who have the opportunity and enjoying such benefit of employment would get less preference and compared with those who have not the same."

Records reveal that the petitioner No.1 was class‐IV pass, whereas the eligibility criteria was class‐VIII pass. The petitioner No.2 at the time of nomination was below the minimum age limit of 18 years and as such she was not eligible either. From the document annexed to the writ petition the contentions of respondents about the petitioners not meeting the eligibility criteria is evident.

The employment under the land loser category in the DVC is a special exemption given to persons whose lands were used in the project and it is a deviation from the general mode of recruitment in a public sector undertaking. Such employment was guided solely by the scheme itself and nothing could be added or subtracted from the provisions of the said scheme. The eligibility criteria of the said scheme should be strictly followed. As per the record, admittedly the petitioners did not fulfil the eligibility criteria. One on the minimum age and the other for not having the minimum qualification. The age of the petitioner No.2 on the date of the nomination was less than 18 years. At the time of nomination the petitioner No.2 was not eligible to be employed. With regard to employment under the said category which was granted by the DVC to the land losers of the said project, 7000 applications were received. Out of which 519 eligible land losers were found suitable according to the scheme and were granted employment. 508 of those land losers have joined. Some died and some opted for cash in lieu of employment.

According to Mr. Dan, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the DVC, the scheme has come to an end and the eligible land losers were also sufficiently compensated. It is further stated that the name of Smt. Anna Rani Majhi that is the petitioner No.1 had been struck off by the District Land Acquisition Authority, Bankura from the list of land losers as the eligibility criteria were not met by the petitioner No.1.

Mr. Dan relies upon the decision in the matter of (1) Seikh Aminuddin & Anr. vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Ors. reported in 2000(2) CLJ 30 and (2) Abu Bakkar Siddiqui vs. Director, WBSEB & Ors. reported in 2002(1) CHN 404 and also an unreported decision in the matter of Sri Nayan Maji (In Re: W.P. No.12945 (W) of 2009) in support of his contention.

In the decision of Seikh Aminuddin & Anr. vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Ors (supra), it has been held that right to property was not a fundamental right and once a property was acquired, according to the provisions of law, apart from the compensation and interest as had been provided under the Land Acquisition Act, no further privilege or compensation can be given to the land losers as the persons whose land had been acquired could not get a preferential treatment in the matter of public employment.

With regard to the decision of Abu Bakkar Siddiqui vs. Director, WBSEB & Ors. (supra), it has been held that compensation by way of providing employment over and above the payment of monetary compensation to land losers was in the nature of a concession and the same benefit could not be construed to be a legal right for employment in respect of the land losers.

In a recent decision in the matter of Sri Nayan Maji (supra), it has been held that qualification should be the first criterion and the age should be the next criterion in preparing the list of eligible candidates to be appointed under the scheme. The learned Judge has also referred to a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Damodar Valley Corporation and Anr. vs. Damodar Valley Corporation Displaced Employees Union & Ors. reported in AIR 1993 SC 2478. Thus the petitioners did not have any legal right to be appointed. The petitioners have not been able to demonstrate any illegality an arbitrariness or male fide in the decision making process.

It is the contention of the petitioners that the petitioners were never informed why the name of the petitioner No.1 was struck off by the District Land Acquisition Authority.

This writ petition is disposed of with a direction upon the respondent‐DVC to intimate the petitioners' the reasons and grounds why the petitioners were not found eligible for employment and the name of the petitioner No.1 had been struck off by the District Land Acquisition Authority, Bankura accordingly. Such intimation should be given on the basis of the records available with DVC and should reach the petitioners within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order.

This writ petition is, thus, disposed of.

There will be, however, no order as to costs.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible on compliance of all necessary formalities.