IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1557 of 1998 In the matter of an application under Article 226 of theConstitution of India. ------ MD.SAGHIRUDDIN SON OF LATE AMINUDDIN AHMAD RESIDENT OF MOHALLA NOORANIBAGH ALAMGANJ, P.S. ALAMGANJ, DISTRICT PATNA. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. ENGINEER IN CHIEF CUM ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER CUM SPECIAL SECRETARY, GANGA BRIDGE PROJECT, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. 4. CHIEF NEGINEER, GANGA BRIDGE PROJECT ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. 5. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, GANGA BRIDGE PROJECT ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, CIRCLE 2, BHAGALPUR. 6. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, GANGA BRIDGE PROJECT, SOUTHERN CIRCLE, GULZARBAGH, PATNA. 7. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, GANGA BRIDGE PROJECT, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, CIRCLE 2, BHAGALPUR. ----------- For the Petitioner :- M/S. Farooque Ahmad Khan & Md. Sufiyan For the State :- Mr. Rajesh Kumar Verma, A.C. to SC XI ------- P R E S E N T THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TIPATHI A.K.TRIPATHI,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The origin of the present dispute is the so - 2 - called acquisition of houses and lands from the land holders for construction of Ganga Bridge connecting Patna with Hajipur. The acquisition of the land belonging to the father of the petitioner was initiated in the year 1972-73. On completion of acquisition a sum of Rs.16091.95 P. was paid to one Aminuddin, the land holder way back in the year 1987 itself. Petitioner became a claimant for appointment under the State on the basis of a policy decision taken by the State that people who have lost their houses in the said acquisition would be compensated by appointment under the State on Class III or IV posts. Petitioner has brought on record the policy decision dated 30.06.1983 as Annexure-2. There have been some deliberations on the claim of the petitioner for appointment under the respondents and he tried to make out a case of coming within the frame work of the said policy as he had lost his so called homestead land in the acquisition. It is the stand of the petitioner that his case for appointment was recommended at various levels but the actual appointment never came despite - 3 - orders passed in this regard. Since he failed to derive the benefit of the policy, he had to approach the High Court by filing C.W.J.C. No. 2862 of 1997. The case came to be disposed of on 27.08.1997 with a direction to the Secretary, Road Constructions Department, Government of Bihar to decide the claim of the petitioner relating to the appointment in terms of the scheme of rehabilitation. It may be noted that all the submissions which are sought to be made now in the present writ application was also made before the learned Single Judge in the year 1997 but despite all that, the High Court did not hold in favour of the petitioner by giving any direction for appointment or consideration for appointment. In terms of the order of the High Court, the Secretary Road Construction Department has passed a detailed order contained in annexure-6 which is under challenge in the present writ application for the reasons which shall be taken note of in subsequent part of the order. It is being recorded that by the speaking order dated 22.1.1998 a categorical finding has been recorded by the - 4 - Commissioner that agricultural land of the petitioner was acquired not for construction of Ganga Bridge but for rehabilitation of certain displaced persons, that the scheme of things and the policy did not apply to the petitioner since acquisition of the land of the petitioner did not amount to acquisition of a house or part thereof either existing in Patna or Hajipur and that the petitioner did not fulfill the criteria to derive the benefit of appointment in terms of the policy including annexure-2. Learned counsel for the petitioner assails the findings first on the ground that there are circumstances to show that the acquisition was for the construction of Ganga Bridge. In this regard a few letters written at the level of the Executive Engineer has been annexed. In addition, he submits that it is a clear cut case of discrimination because yet another person, namely, Santosh Kumar Dwivedi has been offered appointment and the petitioner has been discriminated by the respondents for reasons which cannot be stated in so many words. - 5 - So far as the case of discrimination is concerned, the details and the background under which Santosh Kumar Dwivedi came to be appointed has not been explained in detail by the petitioner. Merely mentioning the name of appointee will not make out a case for discrimination. In addition, if the petitioner is so sanguine about the illegality in appointment of the said person, he had liberty to challenge his appointment in the forum which he feels best to suit his interest. The Court has gone through the findings recorded by the Secretary of the department contained in annexure-6. The Court has no hesitation in recording that the Secretary has meticulously gone through all the aspects of the matter including submission of the petitioner and the documents produced by him in relation to the acquisition. There is a clear finding with regard to the nature of acquisition and the nature of the land. This is based on the documents produced by the petitioner and not on any extraneous material which - 6 - came handy to the Secretary to record a finding against the petitioner. The Secretary has also dwelt upon the scheme of such appointments and the persons who are entitled to the benefit of such scheme. If the petitioner does not fulfill the criteria and his claim for such appointment has come to be rejected, then there is no occasion for this Court to substitute its wisdom by arriving at yet another finding, contrary to the findings of the Secretary as contained in annexure-6 to the writ application. It is not the duty of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to sit in appeal over a decision but to test its validity and rationality of coming to the set of findings. There is no merit in the claim of the petitioner. This writ application is dismissed as such but without any cost. (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.) Patna High Court, The 26th August, 2010. AMIN/ (N.A.F.R.)