PRASHANT KUMAR,J. - (1.) This application has been filed for issuance of a direction commanding the respondents to appoint Nirmal Kumar Ojha , son of petitioner Mayarani Devi as per the scheme of SAIL for providing appointment to dependents of displaced person.
(2.) IT is stated that lands of petitioner Mayarani Devi, acquired for establishment of Bokaro Steel Plant. Thereafter, husband of petitioner, namely, Bijay Kumar Ojha was interviewed for appointment on the post of Khalasi and his name included in the panel of prospective candidate. It is stated that thereafter some litigation cropped up and ultimately same was set at rest by directions given in LPA No. 161 and 162 of 1996 ( R). It is stated that by the time, aforesaid appeals disposed of, petitioner's husband Bijay Kumar Ojha had become 60 years old, thus, he and petitioner Mayarani Devi proposed the name of their son , (Nirmal Kumar Ojha) for appointment as dependent of displaced person. It is stated that the respondents had appointed Sudam Kumar Ojha, who is also dependent of displaced person, but they are not appointing petitioner's son (Nirmal Kumar Ojha) which is discriminatory. It is further stated that a writ application bearing CWJC No. 1571 of 2001 was filed by one Jitu Bauri and another whose case is similar to the petitioner and the aforesaid writ application disposed of by Annexure -6 by giving direction to the respondents to consider their cases. 2004(4) JCR 526 ( jhr) has stopped such type of appointment by displaced person taking into account the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Butu Prasad Kumbhar Vs. SAIL reported in 1995 (suppl) (2) SCC 225. Accordingly, it is submitted that in view of aforesaid Division Bench judgment, petitioner's claim for consideration for appointment of her son as displaced person cannot be entertained. 4. In the instant case, petitioner prayed for consideration of appointment of her son because she is a displaced person. While considering a similar prayer, a Division Bench of this Court in SAIL Vs. Yamuna Prasad Mahato ( supra) has held at paragraph no. 25 as follows: - "This Court takes judicial notice of the fact that the Bokaro Steel Plant was established for the growth of one of the steel Industries of the nation. It was dedicated to the nation and it is a prestigious Steel Plant. It was established in Public Sector. Land had to be acquired by the State under the provisions of the land Acquisition Act for which the Government paid huge amounts of compensation to the displaced persons and even went to the extent of providing employment in the manner described in this writ application. Therefore, the Government cannot be obliged to go on keeping alive the claim of every "Tom. Dick and Harry for appointment nor can the Government of the Authority be called upon to answer a charge that they are playing "ducks and drakes with the Orders of the High Court because the obligation of the State to ensure that no citizen is deprived of its livelihood cannot be stretched to such an extent that they are obliged to provide employment to every member of each family displaced in consequence of acquisition of land. This Court draws inspiration for the aforementioned proposition from the judgment of the Supreme Court of India passed in the case of "Butu Prasad Kumbhar V. SAIL reported in "1995 Supp.(2) SCC 225 at 229, (para -6). Their Lordships of the Supreme Court, while dealing with the Rourkella Steel Plant and while taking the aforementioned view, have gone to the extent of saying that 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. On the contrary, their Lordships have said that acceptance of demand for employment would run counter to Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This for is constrained to observe that Bokaro Steel Plant was depicted to the nation and not to the District of Bokaro only. It is a prestigious Plant of the country and repeated claims for appointment based on compassion must now be deprecated thoroughly and completely. Such considerations have deprived the Management of the opportunity to appoint people through open advertisement from across the country and because of Judicial Orders., they have been prevented from making such appointments and even today, claim after claim is being put forth demanding the benefits of displacement notwithstanding they having received substantial amounts of compensation. This must stop now. The Government cannot be said to be at fault and any such claim made before the Management should be frowned upon as bringing illegal pressure on the Government amounting to upsetting constitutional safeguards of Public Sector Undertakings to get and appoint the best of hands through open advertisements from all over the country. Consequently, this Court has no option but to hold that the writ petition is totally devoid of merit and accordingly proceeds to dismiss writ petition (Service) No. 1628 of 2003 filed by the 20 persons claiming appointment.
(3.) In view of the aforesaid binding precedent, petitioner has no right to claim a writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to consider the case of her son for appointment on Class -IV post. 6. In view of the aforesaid decision of Division Bench, I find no merit in this writ application, hence the same is dismissed.;