1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6551 of 2010 1. Manoj Kumar, S/O Late Mahabir Mandal, Village- Kushapur, P.O - Shobhanathpur,P.S.- Kahalgaon, District-Bhagalpur. Versus 1. The Chief Personnel Manager, National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. Kahalgaon Super Thermal Power Project, P.O. Kahalgaon,District- Bhagalpur. 2. The State Of Bihar through District Magistrate, Bhagalpur, District-Bhagalpur. 3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bhagalpur, District-Bhagalpur. 4. The Sub Divisional Officer (Sadar),Bhagalpur, District-Bhagalpur. 5. The Director Rular Development Agency,Bhagalpur, District-Bhagalpur. 6. The Land Reform Deputy Collector, Bhagalpur, District- Bhagalpur. 7. The Circle Officer Kahalgaon,District-Bhagalpur. ------------------- 3. 26.9.2011. Heard Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Arun Kumar, learned Assisting Counsel to G.P.5 appearing on behalf of the State. The writ petition has been filed seeking employment by way of compassionate appointment with the respondent National Thermal Power Corporation at Kahalgaon in the district of Bhagalpur. The claim of the petitioner for appointment having not found favour with the respondent Corporation, the present writ petition came to be filed. It is the contention of the petitioner that the respondent Corporation although had 2 provided jobs to a large number of the land oustees but failed to consider the case of the petitioner appropriately leading to his non-selection. It is not in dispute that the appointment so made by the Corporation reserving the entire vacancy for the land oustees, came up for consideration before a bench of this court in C.W.J.C.No.3876 of 2010 and C.W.J.C.No.12471 of 2010 and a learned Single Judge of this Court, upon consideration of the issue raised in the writ petition was pleased to set aside the appointment made by the respondent Corporation. The judgment and order of the learned Single Judge came under challenge in Letters Patent Appeals bearing L.P.A.No.1878 of 2010, L.P.A.No.1860 of 2010, L.P.A.No.1899 of 2010 and L.P.A.No.1966 of 2010 and L.P.A.No.133 of 2011 and have been disposed of by a common judgment and order dated 12.9.2011. A perusal of the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench in the batch of Letters Patent Appeals, manifests that the writ petitions had not only been preferred by the outsiders but also some of the land oustees who had not been able to obtain appointment like the writ petitioner. As the appointment of the land oustees 3 was set aside in the writ petition, the Letters Patent Appeal was preferred by the respondent Corporation and the land oustees whose appointment had been set aside. The Letters Patent Appeals were disposed of with the following directions: “As a result the NTPC will be entitled to issue further advertisement in newspapers so as to give opportunity of making applications to eligible land oustees for filling up 101 posts of W/3 grade as per prevailing practice and policy meant for land oustees. This exercise should be done expeditiously, preferably, within four months. Cases of those who were earlier appointed but whose selection and appointments have been declared illegal, shall also be considered afresh in accordance with law along with those who may apply in response to newspaper advertisement. The judgment and order under appeal is modified to aforesaid extent. All the appeals are disposed of accordingly.” As the petitioner is admittedly a land oustee, he is equally entitled for fresh consideration against the post so reserved for the land oustees. He thus would be fully entitled to respond to any such public notice/advertisement issued by the respondent Corporation pursuant to the Division Bench judgment and order passed in L.P.A.No.1878 of 2010 and analogous cases. Needless to add that as sufficient time 4 has elapsed since the process of initial appointment had been undertaken by the Corporation and the notice now to be published pursuant to the judgment and order of the Division Bench, the respondent Corporation would well be advised to consider issues like granting age relaxation to the Land Oustees like the petitioner. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed of. ahk (Jyoti Saran, J.)