IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 15TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 13958 of 2006(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ P.N.SREEMATHI, CHIRAKKAL THITTAYIL HOUSE, EROOR SOUTH P.O. TRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM 682 306. (EXPIRED) ADDL. 2. C.P.GIRI, CHIRAKKAL THITAYIL HOUSE, EROOR SOUTH P.O., TRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM, PIN 682 306. '' 3.N.V.SHALATTIN, -DO- -DO- BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU RESPONDENTS: --------------- BHARATH PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED, 7 KODAMBAKKAM HIGH ROAD, CHENNAI 600 034, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGER, TRAINING AND RECRUITMENT. ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI.S.SUJIN FOR R1 SRI.A.M.SHAFFIQUE, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR SRI.ANIL D. NAIR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).NO.13958/2006\ APPNEDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE NO.L.DIS.45/90/B1 ISSUD BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR TO THE PETITIONER DTD. 8/1/1990. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.PD.M.NOI.PAP.CON ISSUD BY THE RESPONDENT DTD.23/7/90. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTD BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT DTD. 23/7/06. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.HRS.S.PAP.IRI ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DTD. 19/4/2006. HARUN-UL-RASHID,J. --------------------------- W.P.(C)NO.13958 OF 2006 ---------------------------- DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2009 JUDGMENT The request of the petitioner to consider her grandson for employment was not considered at this stage for want of vacancy. The company informed the petitioner that they will consider the candidature, when vacancy arises in future. The said communication is challenged by the petitioner. 2. An extent of 0.187 hectares of land belonging to the petitioner was acquired by the Company. The respondent- Company formulated a scheme for rehabilitation of evictees of the land. As per the scheme, they have offered to provide employment at least to one member in the family. Based on the offer made, the petitioner nominated her daughter Smt. Kala. Unfortunately, she could not join, because she died pending consideration of her application. The petitioner intimated the said fact to the Company -2- W.P.(C).13958/2006 and requested for substitution of dependent. Petitioner subsequently nominated her grandson Sri .V. Shalattin. It is submitted that the grandson has become major; but the respondent rejected the request stating that at present there is no vacancy and only when vacancy arises, his application will be considered on merits along with other applications. Respondent- Company invited applications from the evictees with the object of ascertaining the details of nominees for considering them for employment against the existing vacancies subject to their suitability for the post. It is submitted that the said act was done as a one time measure, that the consideration of evictees for employment was not based on any commitment for employment given at any point of time and that the appointment would be subject to the nominee being found suitable for employment. It is also stated that out of 17 applicants, 3 alone were selected and appointed, who were found suitable in the year 1992. It is further stated that there has been no appointment made thereafter and -3- W.P.(C).13958/2006 that no communication has been received from the petitioner seeking change in nomination until the year 2006. 3. It is a fact that nominee of the petitioner was unable to join the selection process. The reason is that she met with death in the meanwhile. In such circumstances, on the relevant period no other dependent was available for nomination. Her grandson become major subsequently and therefore a request was made. The Company altogether rejected the request of the petitioner but stated that as and when vacancy arises, the applicant also will be considered along with other candidates. 4. In the facts and circumstances narrated above, if the nominee of the petitioner is found suitable, he should be given first preference, as and when vacancy arises. 5. It is not known whether vacancy was arisen in the meantime. The respondent-Company for the aforesaid reasons has obligation to consider the application of the petitioner. If there is any vacancy exists, the Company shall give preference to -4- W.P.(C).13958/2006 the nominee of the petitioner, if he is found qualified. Writ Petition is disposed of with the above direction. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. kcv.