Pramath Patnaik, J. - (1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing order dated 29.12.2006, whereby respondents approved appointment of respondent nos. 10 to 13 and further prayer has been made for direction upon the respondents to consider the appointment of the petitioner in lieu of land acquired by respondents-CCL.
(2.) The facts, as delineated in the writ application, in brief is that land of petitioner's ancestors was taken over by respondent-CCL for "Parej East Open Cast Project" measuring an area of 11.00 acres (approx) in the name of raiyat-Jay Lal Mahto. It has further been submitted that after acquisition of land, on 31.12.1993 the compensation amount was paid to petitioner's father to the tune of Rs. 27,193.82. It has further been averred that as per the guidelines issued by CCL to provide employment to the persons against two acres of land whose ward is matriculate or holding higher qualification in respect of non-irrigated land and three acres of land (non-irrigated) in case of non-matriculate. But the petitioner being eligible for employment was not offered appointment under the said scheme rather four other persons, respondent Nos.10 to 13 herein have been provided employment that too without taking consent of father of the petitioner and without taking into consideration the fact that their names are not found in the genealogical table of said raiyat-Jay Lal Mahto. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner represented before Chief General Manager, Charhi-respondent No. 3 herein, but, it did not evoke any response.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that from the Geneological Chart (Annexure 3 to the writ application), issued by the Circle Officer, vide order dated 23.07.2005 it is amply clear that the petitioner is Great Grandson of Raiyat-Jay Lal Mahto, whose lands were acquired by the respondents-CCL. It has further been submitted that as per the scheme floated for employment against acquisition of land - the employment is to be provided to the descendants of the raiyat and on their denial the person(s) so nominated by the co-sharers are entitled to get employment. In the case at hand, the father of the petitioner had never given any consent for employment to any person(s). The private respondents herein only on the strength of forged signature and in collusion with the CCL officials, got the job by producing forged and fabricated documents. On the other hand, the petitioner is agitating his claim since long but the respondents-CCL did not provide employment to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that even if it is taken on record that the petitioner has got employment in Tractors" India Limited in lieu of land acquired by T.I.L, it is pertinent to note here that the land which was acquired by T.I.L was self-acquired property of father of the petitioner and it was not at all the ancestral land of the petitioner. Here, the petitioner is agitating his grievance on limited scope that if share of the land of father of the petitioner is acquired by CCL, the petitioner is entitled to get employment against that acquired land and merely because petitioner is working in T.I.L, it does not give any vested right to CCL to deny employment to petitioner and give employment to the respondent Nos. 10 to 13 and furthermore, the Guidelines offering employment against acquisition of land nowhere says that if anybody is working with any organization he would not be offered employment. As a matter of fact, the respondents-CCL on their own whims denied employment to the petitioner instead thereof provided employment to respondent Nos. 10 to 13.;