IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 12TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 21ST KARTHIKA 1931 WA.No. 1289 of 2009() {IN WPC.13958/2006 OF THIS COURT} .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENT BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED, 7 KODAMBAKKAM HIGH ROAD,CHENNAI-600034. REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGER, TRAINING & RECRUITMENT BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR SRI.ANIL D. NAIR RESPONDENT(S):/PETITIONERS 2 & 3: 1. C.P.GIRI, CHIRAKKAL THITTAYIL HOUSE, EROOR SOUTH.P. TRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM PIN-682306. 2. N.V.SHALATTIN CHIRAKKAL THITTAYIL HOUSE, EROOR SOUTH.P.O. TRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682306. ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN SRI.T.R.SADEESAN SRI.T.S.SHYAM PRASANTH THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: KURIAN JOSEPH & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.A.No.1289 of 2009 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of November, 2009 JUDGMENT Kurian Joseph, J. The respondent/company is the appellant. The writ petitioner approached this court with the prayer for a direction to the appellant/respondent to appoint one Sri.N.V.Shalattin (Additional 2nd petitioner) under the respondent/company. Reliance is placed on Ext.P4 communication. The factual matrix is that the grandmother of the said Shalattin is the evictee evicted for the purpose of the appellant/respondent. When representations were received, by Ext.P4 communication the appellant/respondent informed the grandmother as follows; “With regard to your representation for employment by virtue of you being a land- loser/project affected person (PAP), we regret to inform you that we are not able to consider your grandson for employment as we do not have any vacancies at present. However, if vacancies arise in the future, we could consider his candidature on merit along with the other candidates. W.A.No.1289 of 2009 :: 2 :: We would also like to mention that our letter PD.M.NO1.PAP.CON dated 23.07.1990 does not constitute any offer for employment whatsoever. Through the above referred letter, we had only requested you to furnish the details of yourself/your nominee to consider their candidature.” 2. Apparently, in enforcing the said alleged promise, the writ petition was filed. Learned single Judge has taken the view that respondent/company has an obligation to consider the application of the petitioner. It has also been held that due preference should be given as and when vacancies arise. Thus, aggrieved, the company has come up in appeal. 3. Having heard counsel on both sides, we are afraid that the directions and findings of the learned single Judge cannot be upheld. After all, what is represented in Ext.P4 is that as and when vacancies arise, the applicant also will be considered, having due regard to his merit, along with other candidates. There is no promise, guaranteeing an employment. Equally, there is W.A.No.1289 of 2009 :: 3 :: no obligation either. However, the fact remains that none of the dependents of the evictee P.N.Sreemathi has been accommodated by the company. We are sure that as and when the application of the second additional writ petitioner is considered along with others, the said fact also will be borne in mind by the company, so that other things including being equal, preference will be given to the said petitioner. Writ appeal is disposed of as above. Sd/- (KURIAN JOSEPH) JUDGE Sd/- (C.T.RAVIKUMAR) JUDGE SK/- //true copy// P.S. to Judge.