:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.5504 OF 2000 PETITION NO.5504 OF 2000 PETITION NO.5504 OF 2000 Narayan Tukaram Yadav ..Petitioner V/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited & Others ..Respondents. Mr.Umesh R. Mankapure for the petitioner Mr.M.D.Siodia i/b M/s Rustamji & Ginwala for respondent No.1 Mrs. M.P. Thakur, AGP respondent Nos. 2 to 4. CORAM CORAM CORAM : SMT. RANJANA DESAI AND : SMT. RANJANA DESAI AND : SMT. RANJANA DESAI AND A.A. A.A. A.A. SAYED, JJ. SAYED, JJ. SAYED, JJ. DATE DATE DATE : 7TH FEBRUARY, 2008 : 7TH FEBRUARY, 2008 : 7TH FEBRUARY, 2008 P.C. 1. The petitioner is an Ex-Serviceman. The petitioner’s ancestral land bearing survey No.594/1B, Gat No. 250, admeasuring 24 Gunthas at village Hazarwadi was acquired for the purpose of erecting LPG Refill Plant of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation. About this fact there is no dispute between the parties. It is the case of the petitioner that the said land was the only land belonging to the petitioner’s father. The petitioner is thus a project affected person. It appears from the averments of the petition and affidavit-in-reply filed by the parties that on 9th :2: September, 1989 the plant at Hazarwadi was commissioned and the LPG plant was shifted from Miraj to Hazarwadi. It is in 1996 that the project affected persons resorted to Rasta Roko Agitation. On 15th July, 1996 a discussion was held in the office of Collector. In that meeting Tahasildar, District Officer, representatives of the police department and the representatives of the project affected persons were present. It was decided that the Collector would indicate to the first respondent an appropriate list of project affected persons who were meeting the recruitment norms. The petitioner consented for job being given to his brother Harischandra Tukaram Yadav. A copy of the said writing is annexed to the affidavit-in-reply filed by Purnima Prashant Mainkar, Manager of the first respondent. There is no dispute about the fact that this letter is signed by the petitioner. It appears that the list of 18 candidates was given by village Gram Panchayat and it was finalised by the first respondent. The name of the petitioner’s brother Harischandra Tukaram Yadav was in that list. On 18th September, 1997 a meeting was organised under the Chairmanship of the Collector, :3: Sangli. In that meeting the Deputy Collector Sangli, Sub-Divisional Officer Miraj, Pramukh of Tasgaon Taluka, Sarpanch of Hazarwadi and others were present. Minutes of the said meeting are before us as annexure to the affidavit of Mrs. Minkar. The village representatives confirmed that the list of 18 candidates was proper; that written test would be conducted and thereafter six posts will be filled on merits after conducting medical examination. On 4th November, 1997 written test was held. Only 16 candidates out of 18 candidates appeared in the examination. On 5th October, 1998 a meeting was held under the Chairmanship of Collector of Sangli, wherein Deputy Collector of Sangli, Sarpanch of Hazarwadi, Upsarpanch Hazarwadi, members of Grampanchayat Hazarwadi and others were present. It is stated in the affidavit of Mrs. Mainkar that the opinion of project affected persons and villagers was sought and an unanimous decision was taken that first six candidates, who are eligible would be given jobs. This proposal was consented by all. Those six persons were accordingly given jobs. According to the first respondent, LPG plant does not have its own security :4: staff and contract for security was given to DGR sponsored agency M/s. Gurad Well Safe Services and the petitioner was employed by said M/s Garud Well Safe Services and he was transferred by the said security services to IOC Miraj Depot as routine transfer. It appears that as per the decision taken in the Collector Office, 16 persons were to be appointed. Since only six persons were appointed, the other persons out of that list filed a Writ Petition No.5835/2004 and that writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 23rd December, 2004. A direction was sought by the petitioners therein to the first respondent to offer employment to the candidates whose names were included in the list. The petition was disposed of by noting offer made by the first respondent. Three alternatives were offered by the first respondent which were noted by the Division Bench. The Division Bench observed that it will be open for the petitioners to consider alternative offer made by the first respondent and to accept any of them. It is pertinent to note that before the Division Bench first respondent had submitted that at that stage i.e. on 15th October, 2004 there were already 35 workmen on the roll at :5: Hazarwadi plant out of which five workmen were surplus. 2. The grievance of the present petitioner is that as per Government Resolution dated 21st January, 1980 the first respondent ought to have employed two persons from his family. The first respondent has failed to do so and therefore, suitable direction be given to them. It is further stated that in the affidavit-in-reply filed by the petitioner, the petitioner has stated that there were six vacancies on in December, 2000 in the plant of first respondent to which there is no reply. The learned Counsel submitted that the first respondent instead of appointing the petitioner engaged contract labour. Thus, the petitioner was not given a permanent job. His services would obviously be terminated, the moment the contract is over. Thus, the petitioner has prayed that the suitable direction be given to the 1st respondent so as to redress his grievance. 3. We are unable to accept any of the submissions of the learned Counsel, We must first note that the lands were acquired as far back as in 1986. Compensation is obviously paid to the people. The :6: project affected persons started agitation in the year 1986. So far as the present petitioner is concerned, he filed writ petition in the year 2000. The petition was taken on board not at the instance of the petitioner but because of a direction was given by this Court that all old petitions should be placed before it. So much for the anxiety of the petitioner to get the job. 4. On merits we find that the petitioner’s case has no substance. The Government Resolution on which the petitioner has placed reliance does not show that two persons from the the family of the project affected persons must be given job. It states that their case may be considered on utmost priority basis. That however does not mean that the case of project affected persons can be ignored by the employer. Wherever possible jobs have to be given to them as per the policy of the Government. In the instant case, we find that so far as Hazarwadi is concerned, a decision was taken by the representatives of the project affected persons, Collector, Grampanchayat, police officials and the representative of the first respondent to select 18 :7: persons because there were 18 project affected families. The petitioner himself consented that his brother may be given a job. His brother’s name was in fact in the list of 18 persons. His brother appeared for examination. However, he could not be selected due to his performance being not upto the mark. In such circumstances, it is not open for the petitioner to make a grievance that his brother was not given job. The steps taken by the first respondent are taken after villagers, representatives of the project affected persons consented to such arrangement.The petitioner’s name did not even figure in the list. However, in the interest of justice we asked learned Counsel appearing for the first respondent whether there are any vacancies as of today. He submitted on instructions that there are no vacancies. In the circumstances, in our opinion, the petition deserves to be dismissed firstly, on the ground of gross laches and secondly, we find that on merits also no case is made out for interference. Petition is dismissed. :8: ( SMT.RANJANA DESAI, J.) SMT.RANJANA DESAI, J.) SMT.RANJANA DESAI, J.) ( A.A. SAYED, J.) A.A. SAYED, J.) A.A. SAYED, J.)