Pramath Patnaik, J. - (1.) Since the aforementioned writ applications involve common questions of law, therefore, the said writ applications have been heard analogously and with the consent of the respective counsels, are being disposed of by this common order.
(2.) In W.P. (S) No. 6667 of 2007, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to forthwith complete the process of appointment of the petitioner being displaced persons on compassionate ground as per the Scheme of the Steel Authority of India Limited, Bokaro Steel Plant and to issue appointment letter in favour of the petitioner since all the formalities at the end of respondent no. 4, Director, Project land and rehabilitation has been completed by recognizing and identifying the petitioner as displaced persons belonging to category-1 of the scheme.
(3.) The brief facts leading to filing of the writ petition in W.P. (S) No.6667 of 2007 are that the petitioner is a displaced person whose residential house including agricultural land were acquired by the State for Steel Authority of India Limited for establishing the Bokaro Steel Plant. It has been stated that the Respondents have issued a scheme to provide job to such displaced person whose lands and/or residential house were acquired for the purpose of establishing the Bokaro Steel Plant in which category-1 is for such persons whose residential house as well as the agricultural land were acquired has been in category-1. The petitioner being displaced person got enrolled in employment exchange and as the respondent no. 1 was in need of Khalasi, the name of the petitioner was sponsored by the employment exchange. The name of the petitioner was in panel of Khalasi which was prepared in the year 1991 for appointment on the post of Khalasi and for that an interview was to be held vide notification issued on 05.09.1991. However, vide order dated 11.05.1995, the respondents have intimated that no appointment will be made on the post of Khalasi out of the notification issued on 05.09.1991. The petitioner alongwith 381 other displaced persons named in the panel of 1991 preferred a writ application being CWJC No. 2459 of 1996 (R) challenging the order as contained in letter dated 11.05.1995 with further prayer to consider the case for appointment on the post of Khalasi taking into account that they were displaced persons and the said writ application was allowed vide order dated 25.06.1996 by setting aside the order contained in letter dated 11.05.1995 declaring the same illegal being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Against the said order, the respondents Management preferred an LPA No. 161 of 1996 (R) while some of the petitioners of the aforesaid writ application have also preferred L.P.A. No. 162 of 1996 (R). Both the aforementioned appeals have been disposed of by judgment dated 07.04.1998 by the Division Bench by directing the Steel Authority to prepare a list containing names of displaced persons in accordance with clause (1) of the proposed scheme within two months from the date of receipt of the judgment and the list so prepared shall be sent to the Director, Project Land and Rehabilitation for verification, who shall get the bona fide of the status and claim of such persons verified and submit the report in connection therewith to the Steel Authority within three months from the date of receipt of the request for verification. The Steel Authority will thereafter hold interview for selection of suitable candidates and prepare a panel containing the name of displaced persons within two months. It has been further directed that the persons whose names are included in the panel will be placed in two categories according to the criteria already laid down and the persons in category (i) will be given employment first. Thereafter, those who are included in category (ii) will be considered for employment. It has been further directed that the persons who were appointed during the pendency of the writ application prior to grant of stay order on 3.4.1996 will be allowed to continue in services. The persons from 1991 panel, who were issued appointment letter prior to 3.4.1996 but could not join services due to the aforementioned stay order, will also be allowed to join services, subject to verification of their status and fitness. It has been further stated that one of the displaced persons namely Lal Bahadur Dubey preferred a contempt petition being M.J.C. No. 139 of 1999 (R) as the order as contained in Annexure-2 was not complied and the said M.J.C. was disposed of by a consent order dated 1.8.2000, annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ application. In pursuance to the direction as contained in Annexure-3, the petitioner filed representation before the respondents for considering his case of appointment being displaced person, whose name has been sponsored by the employment exchange. The Respondents management took process of appointment pursuant to the direction as contained in Annexure-3 above and while verifying the document found some confusion and therefore, the respondent no. 3 vide letter dated 8.4.2002 sought for a clarification from the respondent no. 4, if the petitioner is in category-1 or in category-2 as per list at sl. no. 409, his status was shown in category-1 and as per the list at sl. no. 381 he was shown in category-2. The respondent no. 4 vide his letter dated 27.07.2004 informed the respondents pursuant to their query as contained in letter dated 8.4.2002 (Annexure-4) that the name of the petitioner including others should be in the list of 207 displaced persons in category-1 but due to some clerical mistake the name of the petitioner and others could not be included which is being rectified by including their names in displaced persons in category-1, therefore, requested to take action for their employment. The respondent no. 4 again vide his letter dated 8.12.2005 made it clear to the respondent no. 2 that he has already rectified the list by including the name of the petitioner in the list of category-1 and recommended for taking suitable steps for providing employment to the petitioner whose sl. no. is 7 in the said letter vide Annexure-6 to the writ application. It has been further stated that in the meantime, as the respondent-management is not taking any action with regard to the appointment, the petitioner has filed a contempt case (C) No. 849 of 2005 alongwith one Dharamdas Ghoshal which ultimately was dropped vide an order dated 25.08.2006 on the ground that there is disputed question of fact involved as to whether all the posts have been filled up or not. Being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents in not appointing the petitioner on the post of Khalasi/attendant, the petitioner, left with no other alternative and efficacious remedy has knocked the door of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances.;