Ram Surat And Others. vs State Of U.P.And Others.
2019 Latest Caselaw 3883 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

AFR
 
  
 
Reserved on 25.03.2019
 
                                                                     Delivered on 01.05.2019
 

 
Court no.8
 

 
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 2608 of 1994
 

 
Petitioner :- Ram Surat And Others.
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P.And Others.
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Pradeep Shukla,A.N. Srivastava,Amitabh Mishra,Ashish Tripathi,Ashok K.Balediha,Dinesh Kumar Tripathi,P.N.Srivastava,Sampurnanand,Shesh Verma,Smt. Yogita Chandra
 
Counsel for Respondent :- T.Punwani,C.S.C.,P.K. Sinha
 

 
Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.

01. The instant writ petition has been filed for quashing of the letter No.Pra/136/11/R/94/25 dated 3/5.01.1994 issued by HAL.

02. Brief facts of the case are that land of the petitioner no.1 was acquired for use of Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as H.A.L.), Korwa Division, District Sultanpur. As per policy dated 29.12.1973 laid down by the State Government in Revenue Department and adopted by the Board of Revenue and other concerned department, at least one person of the family was to be given employment in lieu of the land acquired. Another G.O. No.2246-496/10-Bhu-Adh dated 28.02.1974 was issued by Board of Revenue in regard to employment of one person of the family whose land was acquired for the use of H.A.L.

03. As per G.Os. as stated above, the petitioners were called by Personal Manager, H.A.L., opposite party no.4 for test and interview on 31.05.1986. The petitioners were declared successful and were found suitable for appointment as Trainees under the Training Scheme specially designed to explore the avenues of employment to the land losers on certain terms and conditions. The petitioners' name were shown in the list issued by the Training Manager vide letter No.T/664/13/26 dated 10.07.1986.

04. After successful completion of one year training, there was a written and practical test in which the petitioners were also found successful and accordingly a provisional certificate was also issued by Training Manager on 05.01.1988. The petitioners were not given employment in spite of their names being mentioned in the list of successful candidates. They made several representations to the respondents-authorities regarding appointment as per Government Orders dated 29.12.1973 and 28.02.1974. The petitioner no.1 received a letter from the HAL that since there was no vacancy in the HAL, therefore, employment could not be offered to the petitioners. The petitioners again made representation to the respondents-authorities regarding their appointments. Letter No.Pra/136/11/R/94/215 dated 03/5.01.1994 was issued by H.A.L. to the effect that as intimated previously vide letters dated 04.04.1990, 04.05.1992 and 18.09.1992, it was not possible to consider the case of the petitioners for the appointment in the H.A.L. The said letter dated 03/5.01.1994 has been challenged in the instant writ petition.

05. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned letter dated 3/5.01.1994 was issued in violation of the Government Policy to provide employment to at least one person in the family of those whose land has been requisitioned for the use of H.A.L. He also submitted that after successful completion of training of one year, passing of written and practical test and issuing of the Certificate of recognition thereof, the petitioners were denied for employment, which was quite arbitrary, unjust, illegal, invalid and unreasonable.

06. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that several representations made by the petitioners to the authorities concerned were decided without giving any reason and refused to give appointments in the H.A.L., which is contrary to the Government Policy dated 29.12.1973 and 28.02.1974. It is next submitted that similarly situated persons were offered employment as per policy in the H.A.L. against the available vacancies but the petitioners were denied. Denial for the employment was in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

07. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents no.4 to 6 submitted that petitioners placed reliance on D.O. Letter dated 29.12.1973 and G.O. dated 28.02.1974 in which it has been mentioned that at least one person of the family, whose land has been acquired, should be given employment in the concerned Project for which the land has been acquired. A perusal of the aforesaid D.O. and G.O. indicates that it is only directory in the nature and not mandatory. They are addressed to the Secretaries to the Government and have never been communicated to the concerned respondents.

08. He further submitted that the petitioners were selected as Trainee under the Training Scheme to be conducted more or less on the lines of the Apprenticeship Act. A perusal of the letter dated 10.07.1986 shows that no right accrues to a trainee to be given appointment in the respondent's company pursuant to their training because in completion of training period a written/practical test followed by viva was to be held to assess the suitability of trainees for absorption. Section 22(1) of the Apprenticeship Act, 1961 provides that it shall not be obligatory on part of the employer to offer any employment to any apprentice, who has completed a period of apprentice in its Branch. He further argued that there was no vacancy available in the respondent-company, therefore, respondent-company was not in a position to consider the petitioners for employment.

09. I have heard Sri Shesh Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri P.K. Sinha, learned counsel for the respondents-H.A.L. as well as learned standing counsel for the State and perused the record.

10. As per Circular dated 15.07.1997, all the compassionate appointments have been stopped in the Establishment and prior to 15.07.1997 no post of commercial trade was advertised for general selection. The petitioners were not considered. As per several judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court, land losers have no right to get employment in the establishment. The G.O. referred in the writ petition is only in the nature of advisory. It cannot be said to be mandatory. The Government Order cannot be treated as direction or the promise made to the petitioners to give employment.

11. The respondent-Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. is stated to be public limited company engaged in manufacturing the airplanes. It is pointed out that being public corporation, it has its own procedure for recruitment as per its recruitment rules. The normal recruitment procedure entails issuance of an advertisement in newspapers, informing the existence of vacancies and inviting applications from the public at large. After through scrutiny by way of written test and interviews, the candidates are selected and offered appointment with the respondent company. In these circumstances, there can not be any dispute that employment by the respondent would be in the nature of public employment. Opportunities for such appointments are significantly low in number in comparison to the large number of the unemployed youths in this country. Therefore, grant of public employment on the ground that the land of a person or his family has been acquired for a public purpose, would amount to grant of preferential treatment in the matter of public employment which would be contrary to Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

12. It would be useful to consider the observation made by the High Court of Calcutta in the judgement reported in (2001) 1 LACC 228, titled Seikh Aminuddin & Others Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Others, wherein the Court held as under:-

"6. As aforesaid in the affidavit-in- opposition the dole in the form of preferential appointment was sought to be given to the land losers in order to avoid litigation. On the apprehended litigation to be initiated by someone, he cannot be treated as a separate class to circumvent Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and if such classification is made, the same is bad."

"7. It may be that upon acquisition of the subject land the petitioners, if they were cultivators may have lost their employment opportunity and accordingly it may be argued, although no such argument was advanced before me, that they have lost their means of livelihood and accordingly the petitioners and persons similarly situate that of the petitioners may be classified as a separate class."

"8. There cannot be any dispute that in this country public appointments are in significantly few in comparison to unemployment. Because per chance land belonging to a person has not been acquired, he would not get a preferential treatment in the matter of public appointment but land belonging to his next door neighbor has been acquired, again per chance, for a public purpose and accordingly the next door neighbour would get a preferential treatment in the matter of getting a public appointment would that be reasonable? Then again once a citizen has been deprived of his right to property upon following the procedure established by law, if he is treated as a class in the matter of getting public appointment, without the procedure so established by law providing for the same, the same would be nothing but a machination to circumvent Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution."

"9...............The State Government and the Central Government both decided that each family of the land loser would be protected by giving employment to at least one member of such family in the said plant. The petitioners before the Supreme Court contended that each member of family of the land loser must be given appointment and such claim was founded on Article 21 of the Constitution. While negativing the said claim, the Supreme Court observed "Even if the Government or the steel plant had not offered any employment to any person it would not have resulted in violation of any fundamental rights." This observation was founded on the observation of the Supreme Court made in the self same judgment to the effect "Even otherwise, the obligation of the State to ensure that no citizen is deprived of his livelihood does not extend to providing employment to every member of each family displaced in consequence of acquisition of land." In other words, the Supreme Court said that if a citizen has been deprived of his right to land upon following the procedure established by law, the State acquires no obligation to ensure that such a citizen is employed."

"10. In view of what has been held above, I hold that the promise made by Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. to give employment a number of the family of land loser on the request of the Government of West Bengal being contrary to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, is illegal and accordingly own unenforceable. The writ petition is thus dismissed."

13. In the case of Butu Prasad Kumbhar and others Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others 1995 Supp (2) SCC 225, the question that arises for consideration as to whether the respondents/authorities were bound to give employment to all the erstwhile residents and even their descendants and in any case to treat them preferentially for employment as they or their members of families were displaced due to setting up of Rourkela Steel Plant even though they were given marked value for their land acquired. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:

"6.The constitutional challenge based on Article 21 does not appear to have any substances. In Olga Tellies it was observed by this Court that the concept of right of life conferred was wide and far-reaching and the deprivation of the right to livelihood without following the procedure established by law was violative of the fundamental guarantee to a citizen. Needless to say that petitioners or their ancestors were not deprived of their land without following the procedure established in law. Their land was taken under the Land Acquisition Act. They were paid compensation for it. Therefore, the challenge raised on violation of Article 21 is devoid of any merit. Even otherwise the obligation of the State to ensure that no citizen is deprived of his livelihood does not extend to provide employment to every member of each family displaced in consequence of acquisition of land. Rourkela Plant was established for the growth of the country. It is one of the prestigious steel plants. It was established in public sector. The Government has paid market value for the land acquired. Even if the Government or the steel plant would not have offered any employment to any person it would not have resulted in violation of any fundamental right. Yet considering the poverty of the persons who were displaced both the Central and the State Government took steps to ensure that each family was protected by giving employment to at least one member in the plant. We fail to appreciate how such a step by the Government is violative of Article 21. The claim of the petitioners that unless each adult member is given employment or the future generation is ensured of a preferential claim it would be arbitrary or contrary with the constitutional guarantee is indeed stretching Article 21 without any regard to its scope and ambit as explained by this Court. Truly speaking it is just the other way. Acceptance of such a demand would be against Article 14.

14. In view of above discussion and law laid down, I find no merit in the writ petition.

15. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Order Date :-01.05.2019

Asha