WP(C) 5282/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Heard Ms. B. Devi, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the lea rned Govt. Advocate. The petitioner claiming himself to be the son of a land donor has filed this writ petition for a direction to the respondents to appoint him in any suit able post. The petitioner has referred to some instances of giving appointment t o the kith and kin of the land donors. The petitioner’s father had donated some land for construction of Block Development Office, Algapur. It is on that basis he claims appointment being the son of a land donor. It appears that the petitio ner had earlier approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 1224/2003 in which a challenge was made to the order dated 21.3.2001 (Annexure-C) by which certain a ppointments were made on the ground of being the sons/daughters and near relativ es of land donors. The writ petition was disposed of by order dated 21.01.2008 d eclining to interfere with the said order of appointment and issuing direction t o consider the case of the petitioner, if he is found entitled to be appointed. After the aforesaid order was passed certain communications had been made and th ereafter the impugned order dated 12.10.2009(Annexure-N) was passed, operative p art of which is reproduced below - 11. The appointment of near relative of land donor for office of B.D.O. was not a Govt. scheme or policy and the appointments were done at the initiative of the then Hon’ble Minister, Panchayat and Rural Development. There does not appear to be such Govt. Policy to appoint the near relative of land donor donating land for Govt. purpose. In fact there are notings on file by same officers seeking a policy which appear to have been ignored. Besides, the niece of the land donor in the instant case was already appointed. There is no request by the father & t he then land owner on record. The petitioner also has siblings. Hon’ble Court in its order in the W.P. has observed that it has not interfered in the order dat ed 21-03-2001. The order dated 21-03-2001 is with regard to the earlier appoint ments and is not interfered with. Already eight persons were appointed against f ive land donors. Appointments show follow a proper policy and procedure so as no t to infringe on the rights of the general employment seeker at large. The praye r of the petitioner is rejected. Informed all concerned. On being asked Ms. B. Devi, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits th at there is no provision for appointment of land donors in the recruitment rules . She also submits that there is no government policy to appoint sons and daught ers and near relatives of land donors. However, her submission is that if the so ns/daughters and near relatives of other land donors could be appointed by the a foresaid order dated 21.3.2001, there is no early reason as to why the petitione r alone should be meted out differential treatment. She submits that when the ot hers have been appointed, the petitioner’s case ought not to have been left out. If the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is to be a ccepted and a direction is issued for appointment of the petitioner same will be against the recruitment rules and also being not supported by any govt. policy. Merely because sons/daughters and near relatives of the land donors have been i llegally appointed by the aforesaid order dated 21.3.2001, such illegality canno t be perpetuated by issuing another direction to appoint the petitioner in any s uitable post. Appointments can be made as per the scheme for compassionate appointment etc but in absence of any provisions for appointment of sons/daughters and near relativ es of land donors, this court exercising the power under Article 226 of the Cons titution of India cannot issue any mandamus to the authority to appoint the pet itioner on the ground that his father had donated a plot of land way back in 199 0. In the writ petition the petitioner has disclosed his age as thirty years. Thus, at the time when the land was donated, perhaps he was not even born. Appointmen ts of sons/daughters and near relatives on the ground of donation of land is not contemplated in the recruitment rules nor any policy decision has been taken by the state govt. to make such appointments. On perusal of the impugned order wha t is seen is that the particular proposal was made at the behest of the minister , Panchayat and Rural Development and the authority at the dictate of the said m inister made certain appointments. The petitioner claims similar treatment. Thus the claim of the petitioner is based on illegality which cannot be said to be s upported by the equality clause i.e. Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. If th e prayer of the petitioner is allowed same will be a case of negative equality a nd not the one enshrined in the Constitution. For the aforesaid reasons no mandamus can be issued to the respondents to appoin t the petitioner on the aforesaid ground and I also do not find any infirmity in the impugned order dated 12.10.2009 (Annexure - N). Writ petition stands dismissed. Needless to say that the dismissal of the writ p etition shall not be a bar for the petitioner to participate in the recruitment process which the respondents may initiate in accordance with law.