CWP No.10646 of 1990 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.10646 of 1990 DATE OF DECISION: April 18, 2011 KARAM CHAND AND ANOTHER ...PETITIONERS VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN. 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? No 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the digest? No ---- PRESENT: MR. R.S. SIHOTA, SR. ADVOCATE WITH MR. B.R. RANA, ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONERS. MR. S.S. GORIPURIA, DAG, HARYANA. MR. SAMARTH SAGAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2. K.KANNAN, J.(ORAL) 1. Both the writ petitions are similar and are, therefore, taken up together. The petitioners seek through the writ of mandamus a direction to appoint 2nd petitioner as a workman in the LPG Bottling Plant set up by 2nd respondent at Pyala on the basis of a policy to provide employment to Project Affected Persons (PAPs). It was contended that 1st petitioner's property had been acquired for the Project and the 2nd petitioner who was the son-in-law set out claim to appointment as a nominee of the 1st petitioner. 2. The issue in the case was whether a PAP can nominate a person to secure employment or whether the son-in-law could be termed to be a CWP No.10646 of 1990 -2- person to come within the qualification of a PAP or Dependent of a PAP. Admittedly the 2nd petitioner had not been granted employment on the ground that son-in-law was not dependent on the father-in-law to claim a right of appointment. 3. The petitioner had set out a list of persons who had stood by the benefit of appointment after the properties were acquired and when the list had been released giving the details of persons to whom appointment was given. When there were contentions raised by persons who were sons-in- law, a discreet enquiry was sought to determine whether persons claiming sons-in-law were dependents on the respective fathers-in-law to claim appointment. 4. In the list which has been appended to the statement, learned counsel for the petitioner points out that Sheela Rani who has been shown at S.No.63 as person whose property was acquired came by the benefit by securing an employment to her husband Jaipal. It is his contention that property had originally belonged to one Hira Lal whose daughter was Sheela Rani. In other words, for the property which was acquired from Hira Lal, the son-in-law Jaipal obtained the benefit. Learned counsel also points out to me from Annexure R-6, list of three names in S.No.12, 13 and 14 where the widow and daughters of Hukam Singh have been shown as owners and the corresponding beneficiaries for securing employment have been the son, husband and son of the aforesaid three persons. Learned counsel states that all these beneficiaries were actually securing employment by transferring the properties in the names of the respective spouses. 5. I find the whole argument to be a deviation from what is CWP No.10646 of 1990 -3- contained in the petition. The grant of public appointment for acquisition of property is a matter of policy and the only ultimate judicial review will be restricted to whether it is a reasonable policy or not. Policy considerations are not necessarily matters that would fall within the ken of judicial enquiry, unless it is arbitrary. Again, public appointments cannot become the privileges of any individual to demand without reference to the principle of equality as enshrined under Article 14. To put it conversely, unless violation of Article 14 and 16 are complained of, a right of public appointment itself does not obtain. None of the examples which the learned counsel points out brings out a situation of anyone son-in-law of a PAP being favoured with appointment. If it is contended that original owner had subsequently transferred the property to his own daughter and secured appointment to her spouse, then it must be supported by the pleading that a deviant conduct of some PAPs made possible a situation of the sons-in-law securing appointments. I cannot admit such a contention to be taken up on the writ petition without pleadings. If, in the list of persons who have been granted appointments, the petitioners cannot point out to anyone son-in-law securing appointment who is dependent on father-in-law, then, I am afraid, the petitioners cannot better their chances and claim themselves as dependents to their fathers-in-law. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners seeks to contend that the property had been transferred by the original owner to his daughter who was the spouse of 2nd petitioner and through such a process the 2nd petitioner was entitled to consideration for a claim to appointment as dependent husband for acquisition of the property of his wife. That will be the matter of an independent claim for the 2nd petitioner to make, if such CWP No.10646 of 1990 -4- factual basis is established. I am loathe to adjudicate on a point of fact in a writ petition when there is no foundation made to such a case. Any independent adjudication on facts which are established and brought home to the respondents will be independently considered by the respondents, if such factual particulars are disclosed. 7. Subject to the abovesaid observations the writ petition is dismissed. April 18, 2011 (K.KANNAN) Gulati JUDGE