IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 30..7..2008 Coram: The Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.CHANDRU W.P. No. 20484 of 1998 A. Gerard Majella .. Petitioner Vs. 1. The Union of India Rep. by Secretary Defence Department New Delhi 2. The Commander INS Kattabomman South Vijayanarayanan Nanguneri Taluk Tirunelveli District 3. The Flag Officer Commanding-in-Chief Headquarters Eastern Naval Wing Vizhagapattinam .. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for issuance of writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to provide a job to the petitioner in Class III or IV in the second respondent Institution. For Petitioner : Mr. A.R. Nixon For Respondents : Mr. M.T. Arunan ORDER Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 2. The petitioner was a land loser and seeks for a direction to the respondents to provide a job to the petitioner in Class III or IV in the second respondent Institution. According to the petitioner, his lands were acquired in the year 1984 for the second respondent and he applied for a post in the land losers' category. The petitioner's father filed a writ petition being W.P. No. 9150 of 1998 to provide an employment and the said writ petition was https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ disposed of vide order dated 13.7.1998 with a direction to the respondent to consider and dispose of his representation within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of that order. But there was no response from the respondents. Subsequently, on 09.9.1998, a further representation was made. Even then, there was no response. Therefore, the petitioner was forced to file the present writ petition. 3. A counter affidavit dated 10.6.1999 was filed by the second respondent stating that pursuant to the earlier representation, a reply was sent by stating that only an advertisement was made after notifying vacancy and, therefore, the question of consideration of his name will not arise. Further, the name of the petitioner was not sponsored by the Employment Exchange. It was further stated that there was no vacancy and the petitioner's father was suitably advised in this regard. But, however, that was not the purport of the direction given by this Court earlier. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in which land losers were given guarantee of employment. He relied upon the judgment of this Court in S. Dharanipathy / M. Lakshmi Devi v. Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Revenue Department and others [1997 Writ L.R. 498] and referred to the following passages found in paragraph 14 of the said order: Para 14: "In the present case, already a Government Order has been issued ensuring rehabilitation by way of employment of all the uprooted family by affording them one employment for each family...." ".... The respondents are also estopped by conduct and the failure to provide atleast one employment to one displaced family in the fourth respondent's establishment or in surrounding Defence establishment is arbitrary and the denial in so far as the respondents are concerned. The State Government, District Collector and other Public Authorities have been keeping silent and merely forwarding the letters to the fourth respondent and the fourth respondent's mere acknowledgments of the letters are of little assistance to those who have been displaced by eviction. Every effort should have been made by the respondents to provide one employment to each family displaced by the acquisition. Not only the private lands of the persons or the individuals have been acquired, but vast tracts of poramboke land where the villagers have together graze cattle and also are utilising the said poramboke lands as their livelihood of grazing their cattles. The rehabilitations should https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ be not only in form but also in spirit and factual. The fourth respondent should have taken all efforts to provide one employment to each family as there has been a commitment not only by the fourth respondent but also by the Ministry of Defence as seen from the statement made before the Parliament by the Union Government." 5. The learned counsel also brought to the notice of this Court the fact that the above said judgment was upheld by the Division Bench in writ appeal being W.A. Nos. 326 and 327 of 1998, etc. batch cases vide its judgment dated 31.8.2007. Speaking for the Division Bench, S. Mukhopadhaya, J. observed in paragraphs 5 and 6 as follows: Para 5: "From the aforesaid directions, it will be evident that the learned single Judge had not directed to make excess appointment beyond the strength. It has only been ordered that no recruitment against Class III and IV or other lower classes shall be made in the Naval Air Station in question from any other source till one appointment to the members of each of the displaced family is provided. Thus, it is clear that the appointments are to be made against the existing vacancies giving preference to one person of each displaced family, as identified by the District Collector. So far as the age limit is concerned, the question of relaxation will come if only one or other person is over age. That question has to be determined by the competent authority. Taking into consideration the age of persons, that means if a person is much over age, i.e., more than 50 years, in such case, the age may not be relaxed, but in appropriate cases, for certain years, it may be relaxed. As the prescription of qualification of appointment against one or other post is mandatory, we are of the view that no relaxation can be made in this regard. If a person is not qualified, they can be engaged for other menial work such as, skilled or unskilled labourers. Para 6: In the facts and circumstances, while we are not inclined to interfere with the substantive part of the order passed by the learned single Judge, the said order is modified and clarified to the extent above." 6. In the light of the above judgment, the second respondent is hereby directed to consider the case of the petitioner in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ accordance with law and inform the same to the petitioner. This exercise shall be done within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. However, there will be no order as to costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar gri To 1. The Secretary,Union of India Defence Department New Delhi 2. The Commander INS Kattabomman South Vijayanarayanan Nanguneri Taluk Tirunelveli District 3. The Flag Officer Commanding-in-Chief Headquarters Eastern Naval Wing Vizhagapattinam-530 014. W.P. No. 20484 of 1998 tm(co) pmk/7.8.2008. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/