IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 4469 of 2009 Date of decision: 30.08.2011 Pankaj Thakur …. Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ... Respondents Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. Lovneesh Kanwar, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Advocate, for respondents No. 2 and 3. Mr. Varun Rana, Advocate, for respondent No. 4. V.K. Ahuja, J. (Oral): The petitioner applied for the post of Diploma Trainee (Mechanical) in pursuance of the advertisement issued by N.T.P.C. Ltd./respondents No. 2 and 3, vide letter (Annexure P-4) written to the Deputy Commissioner. The State had entered into an agreement vide which employment was to be provided to the oustees. According to the rules, eligibility criteria is as per Clause 3.1.5, which reads asunder:- “In case of such affected families who are co- owners as a brothers and sisters and share of acquired land of each of such co-owners is one biswa or less and if they club their share together with which quantum of acquired land becomes more than one biswa, only one member will be 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 considered for employment against all such co- owners after their mutual consent. (a) Provided that no member of a family whose total land acquired is one biswa or less, married daughter or heirs of pre- deceased/married daughter, who are recorded as co-owners in the revenue record with their brothers, sisters or parents shall be eligible for consideration of employment in the project.” 2. The claim of the petitioner is that he was also eligible and he apart from respondent No. 4 also applied and appeared for the interview and finally respondent no. 4 was selected by respondents No. 2 an d 3. The case of the petitioner as alleged in the petition is that respondent No. 4 was not having more than one Biswa of land on the date of interview. However, no specific plea was taken that consent of the brother of respondent No. 4 was not taken before the interview, so that the area owned by both of them could be clubbed together and respondent No. 4 could be eligible for appointment having land more than one Biswa in the name of himself as well as his brother. The selection has been made on the basis of the scheme formulated by the State Government in pursuance of the agreement with respondents No. 2 and 3. Respondents No. 2 and 3 have to provide employment to the persons affected by starting of the project and for that purpose, these rules have been framed for the persons affected by the starting of the project and reasonable compensation by providing employment to them on preference basis. 3. The stand of respondents No. 2 and 3 is that they have interviewed both the petitioner and respondent No. 4 and respondent No. 4 was found more meritorious and was finally selected. 3 4. No rejoinder is sought to be filed by the petitioner. No reply filed by respondent No. 1, who appears to be a formal party. 5. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of arguments were that consent of the brother of respondent No. 4 was not taken on the date of the interview and, therefore, he was not eligible to be appointed by clubbing the land owned by him as well as by his brother. To my mind, these are not statutory rules and these are only guidelines for providing employment and even in case, the consent was obtained before the date of employment that can be considered by the authorities and employment could be given to respondent No. 4. 6. The date of interview as submitted by the learned counsel for the parties was 13.8.2009. The record of the case has been produced by respondents No. 2 and 3 and according to the record, affidavit of brother of respondent No.4, namely, Sumeet Kumar, is on record, which is dated 11.8.2009, that no member will claim any employment/other benefits from NTPC Ltd. as a land oustee nominee. The offer of employment was made on 15.9.2009 as per record, which was accepted by respondent No. 4 and he joined on 6.10.2009. After selection, respondent No. 4 had undergone training and has been regularized and has been in job for the last more than two years after completion of training and is now working under regular employment with respondents No. 2 and 3 and was found to be more meritorious. It is, therefore, clear that the affidavit of the brother of respondent No. 4 was already on record before the date of interview and this affidavit was sworn in on 11.8.2009, that is, before the date of interview. The scheme under which this was done was only to provide employment to one of them and once the employment has 4 been provided to respondent No. 4, his brother will not be eligible to claim employment on priority basis as per agreement entered into in between the State Government and respondents No. 2 and 3. I do not find any infirmity in the employment given to respondent No. 4 and the record suggests that affidavit of the brother of respondent No. 4 was also submitted and in case, employment has been provided as per the scheme, the brother of respondent No. 4 will not be eligible to claim specific benefit from the NTPC Ltd. The State representative i.e. S.D.M. was also one of the members of the Interview Board and it is for the State Administration to see that these rules are complied with as per the agreement entered into in between the parties. In case, there is any other illegality, it is for the petitioner to approach the State Government by filing appropriate application. 7. In view of the above, I accordingly hold that there is no merit in the writ petition filed by the petitioner, which is dismissed accordingly, so also t he pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Record of the case is returned to the learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3. ( V.K. Ahuja ), August 30, 2011 Judge (BSS) 5