1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2017
  6. /
  7. January

Jagdish Singh And Others vs State Of U P And Others

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|07 November, 2017
Court No. - 35
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 66699 of 2010 Petitioner :- Jagdish Singh And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- U.K. Saxena,V.N. Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.S.G.I.2010/2317,Vivek Ratan
Hon'ble Bharati Sapru,J. Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Vivek Ratan, learned counsel for the respondents.Petitioner has filed the above noted writ petition seeking mandamus directing the respondents to provide employment to the petitioner nos. 2 and 3,in view of Rastriya Punarvas Aur Punarsthapan Niti, 2007, since their land was acquired in land acquisition proceedings by the respondents.
In the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Ravindra Kumar Vs. District Magistrate, Agra and others reported in (2005) 1 UPLBEC, 118, it has been held in paragraphs 20 and 21, as follows:-
"20. It is a general rule that appointments in the public services should be made by inviting applications through open advertisement and strictly on merit so that every citizen should get equal opportunity in the matter of appointment. This rule should be adhered to in the matter of any public employment or appointment. Neither the State Government nor its instrumentality nor any public authority can deviate from this common rule of appointment and if any other procedure or mode is adopted, it would be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India which ensures and guarantees equal opportunity to all citizens in the matter of appointment to any office or of any other employment under the State. However, some exceptions to the general rule for public employment or appointment is also recognized which is commonly known as appointment on compassionate ground which is evolved purely on humanitarian ground and in the interest of justice. This rule was made to meet certain contingencies and to give appointment to a dependant of an employee dying-in-harness to prevent his family from destitution."
"21. The land acquisition act is a self-contained Code and provides the procedure to be followed for acquisition as well as for assessment of the valuation and payment of fair and just compensation as per market value of the person whose land is acquired. In addition to that market value of the land interest @ 12% is also given from the date of publication of the Notification vide section 23(1-a). Besides that, a sum of 30% on such market value is also paid as solatium for distress and for inconvenience or difficulties caused to the person on account of compulsory acquisition of the land vide Section 23(2) of the Act. Therefore, a person whose land is acquired not only gets adequate compensation as per market value of the land but also gets interest on the amount of compensation (a) 12% from the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act as well as an amount of solatium, which is 30% of the amount of compensation. Neither the land acquisition act nor the regulations provides that in the event of acquisition of the land one of the family members of the landholder shall be given employment in addition to the amount of compensation. Therefore, in the absence of any statutory provision or any promise, the petitioner respondent cannot claim appointment as a matter of right nor can the respondent make such appointment."
In view of the above, such relief of appointment in lieu of acquisition of land, cannot be granted to the petitioners,therefore, writ petition fails and is dismissed accordingly Order Date :- 7.11.2017 Atul kr. sri.
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
  • Bharati Sapru
  • U K Saxena V N Mishra