- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioners, except petitioner No. 7 claiming themselves to be displaced person had approached this Court earlier in W.P.S. No. 4410 of 2003 seeking regularization in service. That writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 4.9.2003 (Annexure-4) with an observation that there is nothing on record to suggest that any scheme has been framed to regularize the services of daily wage employees. In such circumstances, no specific direction can be given for regularization of service. It was also observed that if there is any scheme framed for regular appointment of persons displaced in pursuance of Subarnarekha Project, petitioners may bring it to notice of the Administrator, Subernarekha Project, Adityapur, Seraikella Kharsawan, who will look into the matter and decide the claim, if possible, within stipulated period. Petitioners pursued contempt thereafter, which was also disposed of vide order dated 2.7.2005 as the matter was being considered by the Superintending Engineer and Chief Engineer (Annexure-5). The representation filed by the petitioners stands rejected by the impugned order dated 3.1.2006 (Annexure-6) passed by the Chief Engineer, Subernarekha Multipurpose Project. The same has been assailed by the petitioner by way of instant writ petition filed in November, 2013.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that wrong circular being notification No. 5940 dated 18.6.1993 inapplicable to the case of the petitioners has been relied upon to reject their claim. As per the said circular, the requirement of completion of 240 days by 1.8.1985 was necessary for consideration of case of such daily wagers. Petitioners are displaced persons seeking regularization on the basis of resolution of Water Resources Department, Annexure-3 bearing memo No. 3768 dated 9.12.2002. Therefore, petitioners' case, which has not been considered in terms of the said circular requires to be reconsidered.
(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that claim of the petitioners was considered in accordance with law by the respondents authorities and rejected by the impugned order giving reasons. It is stated that vacancies are limited and number of land losers are more than the sanctioned posts. Therefore petitioners can avail of the avenues of appointment by participating in the recruitment process under the advertisement made for available vacancies as and when such requirement arises. He has referred to the judgment passed by this Court in W.P.S. No. 1216 of 2012 dated 7.8.2013 in the case of Narayan Addi v. State of Jharkhand and Others,2013 4 JBCJ 515. It is submitted that this Court on the said occasion also being conscious with claim of appointment of displaced person under the same project, was pleased to hold that no writ of mandamus or direction can be issued upon the respondents for appointment of such persons under the Subarnarekha Multipurpose Project as the petitioner has failed to show any rule under which respondents are under statutory obligation to do so on the ground that they are displaced persons.;