IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13088 of 2003 PULENDRA SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 4/ 29/01/2010 The petitioner claims to be a land oustee whose entire lands had been acquired. Having received compensation he now stakes his claim for employment in government service based on a policy decision of the Government to provide employment to land oustees depending on the extent of the land acquired, he falling in the first category. It has been held in the relevant extract of paragraph 6 in 2005(9) SCC 22(PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND OTHERS Versus MALKIAT SINGH) that the only right of the land oustee is to receive compensation. There is no vested right in him to claim employment simultaneously. “6. .. ..The respondent has got compensation for his land which was acquired. The scheme giving appointment on priority basis was only in the nature of concession to eligible candidates which the respondent could not claim as a matter of right having taken compensation amount for his land which was acquired, more so when he did not fulfil the necessary requirements under the revised scheme. The High Court in the impugned order has observed that: “Obviously, if the effort of the respondent is to deny to the petitioner the job that he seeks in the present case on the 2 ground that he is overage, action of the respondents cannot but be termed as discriminatory.” This observation is not based on proper foundation or facts. It is not a case where any mala fides is alleged against the appellant or its officers. There is nothing to show that anybody was bent upon denying the appointment to the respondent.” If there is a policy decision of the State Government, obviously it shall have its limitations. The respondents in their counter affidavit, have stated that they are not in a position to provide further employment under the scheme. It is not the case of the petitioner that there has been any arbitrariness or discrimination in the implementation of the policy by granting the benefit to another vis-à-vis whom the petitioner was better suited ignoring his claim. There is no merit in this application. It is accordingly dismissed. KC/ ( Navin Sinha, J.)