1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.4240 OF 2008 PETITION NO.4240 OF 2008 PETITION NO.4240 OF 2008 1. Shri Ganesh Damodar Raul & anr. Petitioners vs. 1. The Union Government of India & ors. Respondents Mr.D.K.Mishra for the petitioners. Mr.Sachin Shetye i/b.Mr.Milind Deshmukh for respondents 1 to 4. Mr.V.A.Sonpal, AGP for respondents 5 to 7. CORAM : P.B. MAJMUDAR & ANOOP V. MOHTA,JJ. DATED : 9th April, 2009 P.C. This is an absolutely misconceived petition filed by the petitioners. By way of this petition, the petitioners are seeking employment with respondent no.2-Department of Atomic Energy. 2. The case of the petitioners is that their ancestral land was acquired by the Department and as per the Policy, employment is required to be provided to the petitioners as land losers. 3. During the course of the argument, the learned counsel for the petitioners fairly submitted that the land was acquired in 1966 and the process was completed in 1988. At the time of acquisition of land, petitioner 2 no.1 was aged about 4 years and so far as petitioner no.2 is concerned, he was 74 years old, as mentioned in the cause title of this petition. It is not in dispute that one of the family members of the petitioners was offered an employment at the relevant time and petitioner no.1 was informed in this behalf by the Administrative Officer by his letter dated 27th September, 2004 which is at page 35 of the paper-book. Inspite of the said letter, one Smt.Nilam P. Patil, cousin sister of petitioner no.1, has already been given employment as "Store Clerk" in DPS against the land which was acquired and on that ground the prayer of the petitioner was rejected by the Department. In our view, no such relief which the petitioner is claiming can be granted firstly, because at the time when the land was acquired and when the process of acquisition was completed in 1988, petitioner no.1 was aged 4 years old and the Department is not expected even otherwise to wait indefinitely till petitioner no.1 becomes major and reserve a post for him. Even as per the Policy of the Department, one of the family members was already given employment and petitioner no.1 was already informed as back as in 2004, yet the petitioner did not approach this Court till 2008. Merely because some correspondence ensued between the petitioner and the respondent is no ground for entertaining such stale claim. 3 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that since the acquired land was a joint family land, employment was also required to be given to one of the members of the another branch of the family. It is submitted that the employment has been given to the cousin sister of petitioner no.1 and since the land was held jointly by the entire family, petitioner no.1 also should have been given employment. The question, whether at the relevant time when the land was acquired it was a joint family land or not, cannot be decided by this Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, especially when even at the time when the land was acquired, petitioner no.1 was aged only 4 years and the Department was not expected to wait for 14 years when he becomes major and the post in question, therefore, cannot be kept reserved for such a long time. At the relevant time, a person who was eligible for such appointment was already given an employment by the Department. In public employment, everyone is entitled to be considered for employment equally. If the Department had given appointment to petitioner no.1 after such a long time, such action would be even otherwise bad in law and would be against the provisions of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. The employment to a family member of a land loser is a special type of appointment 4 and it is dehors the rules. Considering the said aspect of the matter, the Department was not expected to keep the post reserved for petitioner no.1 for such a long time. The post for such a land loser is not required to be kept vacant for years to come. 5. Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter and considering the fact that one of the family members was already given employment in the year 1989, as per the letter annexed at page 35 of the petition, we do not find any substance in this petition. The petition is absolutely misconceived and is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage. [ANOOP [ANOOP [ANOOP V. MOHTA,J.] V. MOHTA,J.] V. MOHTA,J.] [P.B. [P.B. [P.B. MAJMUDAR, J.] MAJMUDAR, J.] MAJMUDAR, J.]