IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 27TH JULY 2009 / 5TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 2402 of 2007(J) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. KRISHNAKUMARI. K., EDASSERIL VEEDU, PONMANA P.O., CHAVARA, KOLLAM-691 583. 2. SURESHKUMAR. K., PADEETTATHIL, PONMANA P.O., CHAVARA, KOLLAM-691 583. 3. PADMANABHAN. A., PADMALAYAM, PONMANA P.O., CHAVARA, KOLLAM-691 583. 4. VIJAYHAN. B., KALANGRA KIZHAKKATHIL, PONMANA P.O., CHAVARA, KOLLAM-691 583. 5. SANTHAMMA, MAMOOTTIL VEEDU, PONMANA P.O., CHAVARA, KOLLAM691 583. 6. N. KUTTAPPAN, MANGATTAYYATHU, PONMANA P.O., CHAVARA, KOLLAM-691 583. 7. K.V. VIDYADHARAN, ELLALIKIZHAKKETHIL, (KADUVINAL KIZHAKKETHIL) PONMANA P.O., CHAVARA, KOLLAM 691 583. 8. P.K. GOUTHAMAN, ANITHA BHAVANAM, PONMANA P.O., CHAVARA, KOLLAM-691583. 9. BHASURANGI K., MADHAVAPURAM, PONMANA P.O., CHAVAR,A KOLLAM-691 583. 10. ANIL KUMAR. N., THAMARASSERIL HOUSE, PONMANA P.O., CHAVARA, KOLLAM-691 583. 11. KRISHNAKUMARI. N., PRIYA BHAVANAM, PONMANA P.O., CHAVARA, KOLLAM-691 583. 12. N. ARAVINDAKSHAN, ERAYIL PADINJATTATHIL, PONMANA P.O., CHAVARA, KOLLAM-691 583. 13. RAMANAN. S., KOCHUMOONUTHENGIL PONMANA P.O., CHAVARA, KOLLAM-691 583. WP(C).No. 2402 of 2007(J) -2- 14. SAJU. H., PADEETTATHIL, PONMANA P.O., CHAVARA, KOLLAM-691 583. BY ADVS. MR.N.SUKUMARAN MR.S.SHYAM MR.N.K.KARNIS SMT.PARVATHY ANIL MR.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA MINERALS ANDS METALS, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SANKARAMANGALAM, CHAVARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE INDUSTRIAL DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. SMITHA SUKUMAR5 FOR R2 & 3 ADV. MR.U.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, SC. KMML FOR R1 MR.E.K.MADHAVAN FOR R1 SMT.P.VIJAYAMMA FOR R1 SMT.UMA GOPINATH FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 2402 of 2007(J) APPENDIX PETITIONERS'EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE LAND OWNERS AND THE 1ST RESPONDENT DT. 11.4.2003. EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING PRESIDED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 21.6.2003. EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DT. 28.10.;2003. EXT.P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE SAVE PONAMANA ACTION COUNCIL TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 7.7.2003. EXT.P5 - TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING DATED 10.7./2005 IN THE PRESENCE OF THE HON'BLE MINISTER FOR LABOUR AND THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P6 - TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING DT. 25.7.2005 IN THE PRESENCE OF HON'BLE MINISTRY FOR LABOUR AND INDUSTRY. EXT.P7 - TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING DT. 21.12.2004. EXT.P8 - TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 21.9.2006 OF THE REPRESENTATIVES OF VARIOUS POLITICAL PARTIES IN THE PRESENCE OF THE HON'BLE MINISTER FOR INDUSTRIES AND WATER RESOURCES. EXT.P9 - TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA DT. 3.9.1999 IN O.P. NO. 9673 OF 1999. EXT.P10 - TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DT. 5.1.2007. EXT.P11 - TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM APPEARED IN MATHRUMHOOMI DAILY DT. 25.7.2007 PUBLISHED BY THE RESPONDENTS. // TRUE COPY // PA TO JUDGE rhs S. SIRI JAGAN, J ............................................... W.P(C) No. 2402 of 2007 ................................................. Dated this the 27th day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioners claim to be persons whose land with residential buildings were taken over by the 1st respondent for establishment of the factory of the 1st respondent, from 2003 onwards. They claim that as per agreements with the 1st respondent, persons like the petitioners whose dwelling places were acquired were being given preference in appointment to various posts in the 1st respondent. They now allege that in violation of such agreement executed between the parties for giving such employment the petitioners are being denied employment by the respondents. The provocation for filing this writ petition is Ext.P8, wherein, according to the petitioners, certain clauses have been incorporated contrary to the earlier understanding between the parties, whereby employment chances have been limited only to the persons who are in possession of land as on the date of Ext.P8 and who are to be evicted. They also raise a contention that Ext.P8 also proposes to give employment to only those persons whose land have been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, excluding W.P(C) No. 2402 of 2007 -2- those persons whose land have been acquired by mutual negotiation. Petitioners would therefore contend that the conditions in Ext.P8 violate their rights as per earlier agreements and therefore those conditions in Ext.P8 are liable to be struck down on these grounds. The petitioners seek the following reliefs: “A. Call for records of the case leading upto Ext.P8 from the Respondents; B. Quash the provisions in Ext.P8 limiting its benefits to men only and to those in possession on its date and directing the political parties to identify the eligible persons and prepare a list of them by the issue of a Writ of Certiorari or other appropriate writ, direction or order; C. To issue a writ of mandamus commanding the Ist Respondent to prepare a list of persons eligible to preference in the matter of employment under it including the names of the petitioners also and give them employment according to their seniority on the basis of the date of their eviction;” 2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 1st respondent who deny any right on the part of the petitioners to claim any sort of employment with the company. They also would deny the other contentions of the petitioners. They particularly point out that they have nothing to do with Ext.P8 in so far as the same is only the minutes of a meeting held by the Minister of Industries of Government of Kerala with the representatives of the persons whose lands have been acquired. They therefore would W.P(C) No. 2402 of 2007 -3- contend that the petitioners are not entitled to any relief in this writ petition. The State Government also opposes the contentions of the petitioners. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. The first respondent is a company fully owned by the Government of Kerala. Therefore employment in the 1st respondent company is public employment. All citizens of the country who are desirous of getting employment in the 1st respondent company are equally entitled to be considered for such appointment. Persons whose land have been acquired either under the Land acquisition Act or otherwise do not have any enforceable right under any provision of law for preference in employment simply on the ground that their lands have been acquired. It is not disputed before me that all those persons whose lands have been acquired have been paid compensation either under the Kerala Land Acquisition Act or as per negotiated settlements regarding the price. After receiving compensation for acquisition of land, the petitioners cannot claim any preference in employment as of right. If for the reason that their land has been acquired, they should also be given preference in appointments in the 1st respondent company, that would violate the fundamental rights of all those W.P(C) No. 2402 of 2007 -4- unemployed persons in the state who are far to many, under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India in so far as all citizens of this country have equal right to be considered for public employment. Therefore, I am of opinion that the petitioners are not entitled to any preference in appointment in the 1st respondent company on the ground that their lands have been acquired. 5. Apart from that, petitioners have not been able to produce any enforceable agreement before me containing any such right as claimed by them. Ext.P2 is the minutes of the meeting of the Minister with the representatives of the land owners, in which representatives of the company do not appear to have been present. That also does not contain any provision whatsoever regarding preference in employment in the 1st respondent company for persons whose lands have been taken over by the company. Ext.P8, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent, is the minutes of a meeting held by the Minister of Industries of Government of Kerala with representatives of land owners, whose lands had been acquired or are proposed to be acquired for the 1st respondent company. That does not contain any provisions for grant of preference in employment in the company for persons whose lands have been acquired for establishment of W.P(C) No. 2402 of 2007 -5- the company. The counsel for the petitioners submits that the representatives of the 1st respondent were also present in the meeting, which resulted in Ext.P8. Even assuming so, Ext.P8 or any other agreement for that matter, cannot be relied upon for preference in employment to any person merely on the ground of acquisition of their land for the purpose of the 1st respondent company. In fact in paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent they categorically deny any such right in any person whose land has been acquired. Paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit reads thus: “It is submitted that the petitioners have no legal right to seek preference in employment in the company. As the company had given land value, delay compensation, enhanced shifting charges etc. as a special package at the time of purchasing the land of the petitioners and similarly situated persons, they have no right at all to ask for preference in employment in the Company. The 1st respondent is a Government Company and employment therein is public employment. All the general public are entitled to get equality of opportunity in the matter of public employment. For the mere reason that lands of the family of the petitioners were purchased by the company, petitioners cannot derive any special right or privilege to get employment in the company. The claims raised in the above writ petition are totally misconceived and hence denied.” 6. Of course the learned counsel for the petitioners relies on Ext.P9 judgment of this court in O.P.No.9673 of 1999, wherein, according to the petitioners, such a right for employment in the 1st W.P(C) No. 2402 of 2007 -6- respondent company has been recognised. It is true that Ext.P9 is a judgment dealing with such a claim. While disposing of the said writ petition the learned judge who passed Ext.P9 judgment has held as follows: “..... I do not find any illegality in the steps taken by the second respondent. It is pertinent to note that petitioners have not raised any claim on the basis of any statutory provision. In the absence of any statutory basis petitioners cannot invoke the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court to give a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to regularise the service of the petitioners. I am of the view that second respondent has acted only in accordance with law. They have given preference to the evictees as is evident from the statement made by the company. It is made clear only after exhausting the first list, thereby giving employment to the evictees, appointments will be effected from the second list.” Therefore I am not satisfied that Ext.P9 judgment recognises any such right for preference in employment, which if granted would be totally opposed to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, I am not satisfied that petitioners are entitled to any relief in this writ petition and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs