IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2976 of 2004 PRAMOD KUMAR son of Ramdeo Kuwar, resident of Village Malhipur, P.S.Barauni, Dist.Begusarai- -petitioner Versus 1.THE CHAIRMAN,Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna 2.The Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna 3.The Director, Personnel Department, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road Patna 4.The General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Barauni Thermal Power Station, Barauni, District Begusarai-----------------------------respondents ----- For the petitioner :M/S Rama Kant Prasad Singh Satyendra Narayan Singh Ramesh Kumar Yadav,Advocates For the respondents:Mr.Vinay Kirti Singh,Advocate ----------- 3. 11.3.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Bihar State Electricity Board. The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to make appointment of the petitioner in Barauni Thermal Power Station on the basis of Land Oustees Rehabilitation Scheme. This is the second round of litigation by the petitioner. Earlier he had filed C.W.J.C.No. 11900 of 1996 which was disposed of by order dated 21.10.1997 stating that no relief can be granted in favour of the petitioner for the present in view of the stand taken by the respondent Board regarding its passing through financial crunch and there being surplus staff, but if any appointment is 2 made in future against any one or other post for which the petitioner is eligible then they will also consider the case of the petitioner for such appointment on the basis of the Land Oustees Rehabilitation Scheme. It was further directed that the order shall remain valid for the coming three years. In view of the aforesaid order dated 21.10.1997 this Court is of the view that no further writ petition can lie on behalf of the petitioner unless there are fresh materials in support of the same. Learned counsel for the Bihar State Electricity Board submits that the condition of the Board continues to remain the same as was stated before this Court when the order dated 21.10.1997 was passed. It is further pointed out that pursuant to the direction issued by the Apex Court three advertisements were issued for certain appointments. Advertisement No. 2/97 was related to the appointment of Junior Electrical Engineer but the petitioner being a Civil Engineer was not eligible for the same. The second advertisement No.3/98 was issued for the post of Switch Board Operators for which the qualification required was Degree in 3 Mechanical Engineering along with Diploma course in thermal Power Plant Engineering at PETS or any equivalent course, which qualification the petitioner did not possess. Lastly, Advertisement No.3/99 was issued for appointment of Assistant Engineer(Civil) and the petitioner was duly informed regarding the same in compliance of the Court’s order dated 21.10.1997 by letter No. 420 dated 4.6.1999 enclosing copy of the said advertisement stating that if he fulfilled the necessary eligibility and conditions then he could apply against the same till 30.6.1999; but the petitioner did not apply against the said post nor he sent any information in reply to the said letter of the Board. It is submitted by learned counsel for the Board that apart from the aforesaid three advertisements there has been no advertisement for appointment to Class III and Class IV post, to which learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is not at all interested for appointment in Class III and Class IV post. Learned counsel for the petitioner again relies upon the letter dated 20.5.1989 (Annexure-4) issued by the Collector, 4 Begusarai on the basis of which it is stated that the name of the petitioner was also recommended for appointment by the concerned Committee with respect to Land Oustees. Learned counsel also refers to the fact that some of the recommended persons had been given employment but the petitioner has been discriminated against. On a consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that no relief can be granted to the petitioner as already stated in the order dated 21.10.1997 in the previous writ petition, more so after the passage of another 12 years since then. The authorities of the Board in view of the stand taken in the counter affidavit have complied with the spirit of the order dated 21.10.1997 by informing the petitioner with respect to the post for which he may have been eligible. The claim of the petitioner, that there is no question of application of any merit criteria to the appointment of the petitioner and he should be straightaway appointed being a land looser and further that deliberately the qualification had been fixed at 65% in the advertisement No. 3/99 so as to exclude 5 persons like the petitioner, cannot be accepted when it is open to the authorities of the Board while giving priority to the land loosers to insist upon certain minimum qualification and eligibility for the same so as to ensure that the work of the post is performed by competent persons and not merely those who have obtained a degree without having the necessary level of competence required. In view of the fact that the petitioner was not given any relief in the previous writ petition disposed of in the year 1997, there is no question of permitting him to reagitate the matter in the second writ petition so as to get an order of a different nature when in the mean time there is no fresh material to support the said stand. With the above observations, the writ application is dismissed. (Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.) Spal/