S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA, J. - (1.) THE 1st respondent, Bhairav Mandal (writ petitioner) whose services were terminated on 1st July, 1996, filed the writ petition CWJC No. 680 of 2000 (R) before this Court for issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ/order/direction on the appellants (respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in the writ petition) to provide him with employment and thereby to reinstate him in the services of the appellants. It was allowed by the learned single Judge by impugned judgment dated 10th September, 2002 in CWJC No. 680 of 2000 (R). The appellants (respondents) were directed to grant a job to the 1st respondent under the Damodar Valley Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation). According to the appellants, the 1st respondent (writ petitioner) had no right for appointment under the Corporation. Further, the scheme/project having already come to an end, the 1st respondent cannot be appointed.
(2.) THE brief fact of the case is that the lands of 214 villagers were acquired by Land Acquisition Department of the State for the purpose of construction of Tail Pool Dam at Panchet under the Corporation. About 18,47 acres of lands of the father and grand father of the 1st respondent were acquired. According to 1st respondent, he lost his 100% land because of such acquisition. Further case of the 1st respondent was that the Corporation evolved a scheme circulated vide Office Circular No. PLR/11/ Policy -83 dated 15th September, 1977 for appointment of land losers under the Corporation. It was decided to fill up 15% of Class - Ill posts from amongst displaced persons. In a meeting held on 5th April, 1986, it was decided that the Corporation will provide jobs in Tail Pool Dam Project only to 37 land losers, who had lost 75% or more lands. Thereafter, 1st respondent was offered an appointment under the Corporation vide letter dated 7th May, 1988. In the meantime, some of the land losers, who were not appointed, moved before the Calcutta High Court and obtained an order of stay. In view of order of stay, no order of appointment was issued. Subsequently, when the order of stay was vacated by the Calcutta High Court, the Corporation issued order of appointment in favour of 1st respondent by their letter dated 16th February, 1993. Some of the land losers, who were not appointed, moved before the Ranchi Bench of the Patna High Court and filed CWJC No. 980 of 1993 (R), CWJC No. 2779 of 1993 (R) and CWJC No. 2278 of 1995 (R). The appointment of 29 persons, including 1st respondent having found illegal, the High Court vide its order dated 21st December, 1995 directed the Corporation to give notice to the illegal appointees and pass appropriate order. In view of said order, the services of 1st respondent was terminated vide letter dated 3rd January, 1996. The 1st respondent, thereafter, moved before the Calcutta High Court in civil order No. 2236 (W) of 1996 against the order of termination. The Calcutta High Court initially passed an interim order of stay. Against the stay order, the Corporation preferred an appeal being FMAT No. 633 of 1996. The appellate Court set aside the order of Bulaki Ram Versus Jatru Mahali termination but allowed the Corporation to pass an appropriate order, in accordance with law after notice to the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent was noticed on 30th April, 1996 and after hearing him, his services were terminated vide Corporation 'sorder dated 1st July, 1996. A writ petition CWJC No. 1658 of 1996 (R) was preferred by petitioner and 24 others before the Ranchi Bench of the Patna High Court, wherein the order of termination dated 1st July, 1996 was challenged but it was dismissed on 19th December, 1997 upholding the order of termination. While dismissing the writ petition, the Court observed that it was not clear whether 37 vacancies worked out are 15% of the total posts for displaced persons or those were the total vacancies. In this background, the Corporation was directed to work out the exact number of posts available for being filled up by persons belonging to the category of displaced persons. No opinion was expressed on the question as to whether 37 posts duly represent 15% posts reserved for displaced persons out of total number of posts which have to be taken into account under the office circular dated 15th September, 1977 or not. Admittedly, the project, namely, Tail Pool Dam Project at Panchet, there after, came to an end having closed. There is no provision made under any scheme for adjustment of any surplus employee in another project or reinstatement/reappointment of any employee in some other project. In the present case, the 1st respondent failed to show that the scheme, namely, Tail Pool Dam Project in which he was appointed is still in existence and a post is vacant to accommodate him. The Supreme Court in the case of 'State of H.P. V/s. Nodharam ', AIR 1997 SC 1445 held : - - "It is seen that when the project is completed and closed due to non -availability of funds, the employees have to go along with its closure. The High Court was not right in giving the direction to regularize them or to continue them in other places. No vested right is created in temporary employment. Directions cannot be given to regularize their services in the absence of any existing vacancies nor can directions be given to the State to create posts in a non -existent establishment. The Court would adopt pragmatic approach in giving directions. The directions would amount to creating of posts and continuing them despite non -availability of the work. We are of the considered view that the directions issued by the High Court are absolutely illegal warranting our interference. The order of the High Court is, therefore, set aside." In the case of 'U.P. Land Development Corporation V/s. Amar Singh, reported in (2003) 5 SCC 388, the Supreme Court held that when the scheme/project comes to an end, the services of employees working in the project also come to an end. Though the 1st respondent may have right for consideration of his case for regular appointment under the Corporation but he has no right for reinstatement/or reappointment in absence of a statutory rule/or scheme. In the aforesaid background, the learned single Judge should not have directed the appellant -Corporation to grant a job to the 1st respondent (writ petitioner) under the said Corporation.
(3.) FOR the reasons aforesaid, the judgment dated 10th September, 2003 passed by learned single Judge in CWJC No. 680 of 2000 (R), Bhairav Mandal V/s. Damodar Valley Corporation and Ors. cannot be upheld and the same being against the law, is, therefore, set aside.;