- (1.) In this writ application, petitioners pray for quashing the order dated 31.8.2004 passed by Respondent No. 3 whereby, representation of petitioners rejected.
(2.) It is submitted by Sri Sekhar Prasad Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners that on an earlier occasion , petitioners filed a writ application bearing CWJC No. 713 of 2000 and the said writ application disposed of by a Bench of this Court by order dated 8.10.2002, wherein this Court directed the respondents to dispose of the representation of petitioners within a period of six months from the date of production of a copy of the order. He submits that in the said representation, petitioners stated that as per the judgment of Hon'ble Patna High Court in LPA No. 161 & 162 of 1996 ( R), they are entitled to be appointed as displaced person, but the respondents in a mechanical manner without taking into account the various directions given in LPA No. 161 & 162 of 1996 ( R) had rejected petitioners' representations by the impugned order. Accordingly, it is submitted that the action of respondent in rejecting the representation of petitioners cannot be sustained.
(3.) On the other hand, Sri Rajiv Ranjan, learned counsel for the respondent/Bokaro Steel Plant submits that the Managing Director of Bokaro Steel Plant disposed of the representation of the petitioners by a speaking order as contained in Annexure- 4, which shows that the representation of petitioners rejected after considering the various directions of Hon'ble Patna High Court in LPA No. 161 & 162 of 1996 ( R ). He further submits that the said representation rejected because there is no vacancy at the relevant time. In the scheme approved by Hon'ble Patna High Court, it is clearly mentioned that the cases of displaced persons will be considered for appointment against the existing vacancies. Since, there is no vacancy, these petitioners are not entitled for appointment.;