Mohinder Singh vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited and Others

Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.—The petitioner submitted an application on July 21, 1997 for the grant of a job at the L.P.G. Bottling Gas Plant. His request was declined vide order dated October 7, 1997 by the Deputy Commissioner, Kamal. A copy of this order has been produced as Annexure P-5 with the writ petition. The petitioner complains that the order is arbitrary. He prays that it be quashed.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that in accordance with the instructions issued by the Indian Oil Corporation vide letter dated June 2, 1988, the persons whose land has been acquired as also the residents of the villager where the bottling plant had been set up, were entitled to the grant of appointment. The claim made on behalf of the petitioner has been controverted by the learned counsel for the respondents.

According to the petitioner''s own case, the State of Haryana had acquired the land vide notification dated June 6, 1985. In the year 1988, a communication had been sent by the Indian Oil Corporation to the Deputy Commissioner, Karnal. In this letter, it was inter-alia mentioned that "there are 5 persons within the age group of 10 to 25 who are matriculates and above. These persons can be considered for regular appointment as Khallasis". It was further stated that "there are 5 persons who are 8th standard and above. They can be taken as Sweeper if they are willing to accept this job." Both these stipulations were made in respect of the persons whose land had been acquired. The jobs were sought to be provided to the persons who had lost their source of livelihood. Either the land owner or one of his dependents could be accommodated. The petitioner admittedly did not fall in this category.

Mr. Goel submits that even the villagers had to be accommodated. So far as this aspect of the matter is concerned, a perusal of the letter shows that there were 22 positions of Plant Operators. This was a "skilled job". Only persons who had qualified from I.T.I, were entitled to be appointed. The petitioner did not fall in this category.

Besides the above, we further find that the petitioner had submitted an application for the grant of a job in July, 1997 i.e. after almost 12 years of the acquisition of the land. Admittedly, no land belonging to the petitioner or his family had been acquired. It is not the petitioner''s case that he possesses the qualification from I.T.I, so as to be eligible for one of the skilled jobs. The respondent-Corporation was not expected to grant job to a person from the village at any time he asked for it. It appears that the letter issued in the year 1988 was a onetime measure calculated to help the villagers whose land was being acquired. It did not mean that the residents would be continuously accommodated at the plant. The Corporation has to follow the principle of equality and the mandate of Article 14 governs it. It could not have confined the consideration to the residents of the village for all times to come.

It has been pointed out by the counsel for the respondents that similar writ petitions No. 8283 of 1995 (Sultan Singh and Ors. v. Haryana State and IOC), 6746 of 1991 (Zile Singh v. Haryana State and IOC) 6747 of 1991 (Mohan Singh v. Haryana State and IOC), 6748 of 1991 (Karan Singh v. Haryana State and IOC) 11820 of 1996 (Mohinder Singh v. IOC) and 17432 of 1996 (Om Parkash v. State and IOC), have already been dismissed. A copy of one of the orders has also been produced alongwith the written statement. Learned counsel is right. We find that the aforesaid writ petitions have already been dismissed. We respectfully follow the decision.

In view of the above, we find that the action of the Corporation in refusing to appoint the petitioner does not suffer from any infirmity so as to call for any interference.

Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed.