As per case facts, the petitioner's grandmother's land was acquired in 1988 for an LPG Bottling Plant by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL). A circular from 1986 suggested that ...
O.J.C. No.14605 of 1997 Page 1 of 102
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK
O.J.C. No.14605 of 1997
In the matter of an Application under
Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950
***
Pratap Chandra Mohanty
Aged about 25 years
Son of Sri Sadhu Charan Mohanty
Village: Saraswatipur
P.O.: Chhanpur, P.S.: Balasore
District: Balasore. … Petitioner
-VERSUS-
1. Indian Oil Corporation Limited
Represented through
Managing Director
G-9, Ali Yaver Jung Marg
Indian Oil Bhawan, Bandra (East)
Bombay (Mumbai) – 400 051.
2. Executive Director
Indian Oil Corporation Limited
G-9, Ali Yaver Jung Marg
Indian Oil Bhawan, Bandra (East)
Bombay – 400 051.
3. Deputy General Manager (Personnel)
Indian Oil Corporation Limited
Marketing Division, Eastern Region-2
Gariahat Road, (South) Dhakuria
Calcutta – 700 068.
O.J.C. No.14605 of 1997 Page 2 of 102
4. The Plant Manager
L.P.G. Bottling Plant
Indian Oil Corporation Limited
At/P.O.: Chhanpur
District: Balasore.
5. Collector & District Magistrate
Balasore, At/P.O.: Balasore
District: Balasore. … Opposite parties.
Counsel appeared for the parties:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Banshidhar Baug,
Senior Advocate
assisted by
M/s. Gyanaranjan Sahoo,
N.N. Mohapatra and B. Das,
Advocate
For the Opposite party : M/s. Sailesh Chandra Samantaray,
Nos.1 to 4 Naresh Chandra Sahoo,
Sakti Prasad Panda,
Debraj Mohanty, S. Pattnaik,
Pravat Kumar Muduli and
Sudarshan Nanda, Advocates
For the Opposite party : Mr. Kailash Chandra Kar,
No.4 Government Advocate and
Mr. Saswat Das,
Additional Government Advocate
P R E S E N T:
HONOURABLE
MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
Dates of Hearing : 20.03.2026 and 22.05.2026
::
Date of Judgment : 29.05.2026
O.J.C. No.14605 of 1997 Page 3 of 102
JUDGMENT
The petitioner filed this writ petition craving for grant of
following relief(s):
“Under the facts and circumstances stated above this
Hon’ble Court may be graciously pleased to admit this
writ application and issue a rule NISI calling upon the
opposite parties Nos.1 to 4 to show cause as to why they
shall not be directed to appoint the petitioner in the L.P.G.
Bottling Plant, Balasore of the Indian Oil Corporation
Limited or in any other suitable place he being a land
loser;
And if the opposite parties or any one of them fail to show
cause or show insufficient cause, make the said Rule
absolute.
And pass such other order/orders as this Hon’ble Court
may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of
the case;
And for this act of your kindness, the petitioner shall ever
pray.”
The facts:
2. The necessary factual matrix as adumbrated by the
petitioner in the writ petition is narrated hereunder.
2.1. In the year 1988, the State Government in exercise of its
power under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 acquired a
large area of agricultural lands in Village: Bamapda and
Chhanpur in the district of Balasore for establishment of
O.J.C. No.14605 of 1997 Page 4 of 102
Liquefied Petroleum Gas (“LPG”, for brevity) Bottling
Plant by Indian Oil Corporation Limited.
2.2. For the said purpose, an area of Ac.0.075decs. of land of
the father of the petitioner in Mouza: Bamapada was
acquired by the State Government. Therefore, the
grandmother of the petitioner, namely Smt. Suryamani
Mohanty, a land loser, lost her agricultural land.
2.3. For the purpose of setting up of the aforesaid LPG
Bottling Plant in Mouza: Chhanpur and Bamapada, the
opposite party No.1 (Indian Oil Corporation Limited) in
pursuance of the Circular of the Ministry of Petroleum
and Natural Gas, Government of India vide Circular in
Letter No.J/25011747/6-GEM, dated 21.02.1986
entered into an agreement with the Collector and District
Magistrate, Balasore, opposite party No.5 to the effect
that each of the land losers’ families or their nominees
would be provided with a suitable job in the Bottling
Plant. The said Circular dated 21.02.1986 issued by the
Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of
India is reproduced hereunder:
“No.J-25011747/6-GEN.
Government of India
Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas
New Delhi, the 21
st February, 1986
To
The Chief Executive of all
O.J.C. No.14605 of 1997 Page 5 of 102
Public Sector Undertakings
and Organisations.
Subject: Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation aspects
involved in major projects.
Sir,
I am directed to forward herewith a copy of Ministry
of Industry (Department of Public Enterprises) O.M.
No.15/13/84-(C) dated 3
rd February, 1986 on the
above subject for compliance.
Sd/- (S. Kannappan)
For Under Secretary to
Government of India.
Copy to: All Officers and Sections.
***
Copy of
O.M. No.15/13/84-BPR(C)
dated 3
rd February, 1986
received from
Ministry of Industry,
Department of Public Enterprises.
Subject: As above
Government have been seriously concerned about
the lack of uniformity in approach in regard to
acquisition of land for projects and alleviation of the
difficulties faced by the dispossessed persons. After
careful consideration of the matter in all its
implications, Government had decided as follows:
2. Land Acquisition:
(i) Where land acquisition becomes inevitable, the
selection of site should be done by a Committee
O.J.C. No.14605 of 1997 Page 6 of 102
consisting, among others, also of a representative of
the Estate Government. After deciding the district in
which the project is to be located, the Committee
should indicate to the district administration the
extent of land required, as also the basic
infrastructural requirements, for suggesting various
alternative sites in the district. The site suggested by
the district administration may be inspected by the
Committee before a final selection is made. While
selecting the site every effort should be made to
avoid acquisition of valuable agricultural land
especially wet land, forest land or ecologically fragile
lands. The acquisition of whole villages should also
as avoided as far as possible. The primary aim
should be the amount of disturbance to human
habitations and their way of life. With a view to
avoiding acquisition of land for in excess of the
requirements, the project authorities in the detailed
project report should clearly indicate the minimum
quantum of land required for setting up the unit
along with details justification, functional
distribution etc. and such requirements should be
supported with map duly authenticated by the State
Governments and their willingness to acquire land
for the purpose. The requirement of land for
expansion in the foreseeable time horizontal should
be taken into account, but at best such additional
requirement could be only 25% of the land required
in the initial project. The public investment Board,
while considering the project, will examine the
requirement of land and give its recommendations
on the extent of land which it considers to be
justified for the Project.
O.J.C. No.14605 of 1997 Page 7 of 102
(ii) Many of the existing public undertaking have in their
possession lands for in excess of their present
requirements and also possible expansion in the
near future. A survey may be undertaken by the
administrative Ministries Departments/
Undertakings to identify such surplus lands. This
survey should be completed by Sept. 30, 1986 –
After identification, the surplus land could be
transferred for the appropriate use by Central
Government Departments or for establishment of
new public sector undertakings, or for location of
ancillary units. Such land could even be considered
for transfer to the State Governments for setting up
small industrial units or Industrial Estates. In
appropriate cases, the surplus land could be
released for afforestation. Wherever feasible,
construction of housing projects or worker should
also be considered on surplus land. If small chunks
of land are available, these could be utilised for
promoting housing cooperatives of the employees of
the public sector undertakings. The transfer of
surplus land will, in all cases, have to be decided
after taking into consideration the terms and
conditions in the original deed of acquisition.
(iii) Government considered it desirable to set up a joint
management agency for the planning and provision
of common services and amenities to public sector
enterprises contiguously located especially for items
like townships, water supply, medical and
educational facilities etc. The feasibility of
establishing services and facilities for the projects to
be set up in the same area will be considered by the
Department of Expenditure in consultation with the
concerned ministries/departments and the Ministry
O.J.C. No.14605 of 1997 Page 8 of 102
of Environment and forest and placed before the
Public Investment Board for decision.
(iv) Before deciding on fresh acquisition of land, the
concerned Industrial Infrastructure Development
Corporations of the States should be consulted and
the availability of acquired land with them
ascertained. This will minimise the need for new
acquisition with all its consequent problems.
3. Compensation:
The land acquisition authorities should streamline
the procedure for payment of compensation in the
light of the provision of the recently amended Land
Acquisition Act. It should be ensured that the
compensation amount is disbursed to the real
beneficiaries within a reasonable time. The
Department of Rural Development will separately
undertake case studies on the procedure being
followed in regard to land acquisition, payment of
compensation to affected persons, the time taken to
complete the formalities etc. and suggest measures
for further improvement in the system. It will be the
responsibility of the concerned State Governments to
remove any encroachments noticed on land notified
under the Land Acquisition Act.
4. Rehabilitation:
(i) Each Land Acquisition Unit will have small
Rehabilitation Cell. This Cell will identify the persons
who are to be treated as dispossessed persons
following the acquisition of land and forward a list of
all such persons to the project authorities. The cost
of running this cell will be met by the project
authorities, for a limited period (say 2 or 3 years) as
O.J.C. No.14605 of 1997 Page 9 of 102
may be agreed to between the Project Authorities
and the State Government.
(ii) Rehabilitation assistance will be limited to
those whose land or homesteads are acquired
provided they are themselves cultivating those
lands or residing in the homesteads. Absentee
landlords will not be entitled to any
rehabilitation assistance.
(iii) Persons whose land holdings have been completely
acquired will be given priority in rehabilitation
assistance as compared to others whose land has
been duly partially acquired. Where homesteads
have been acquired, alternative house site should be
provided to the displaced persons. These sites
should be provided to the displaced persons. These
sites should be provided to the displaced persons.
These sites should be provided with infrastructural
amenities like roads, water supply, sanitation,
educational and medical facilities etc. All
expenditure thereon will be a charge on the project.
(iv) The project authorities should be directed to examine
the list of awardee families eligible for rehabilitation
assistance received from the Rehabilitation Cell with
reference to their educational attainments and
arrange for imparting to them suitable education and
training to equip them to be considered for
employment in the project, subject to
availability vacancies. Such education and
training should be impart through the existing and
available the training institutions of the State and
the Central Government. The project authorities may
meet the cost of training of the persons who are
selected from among the evictee families. If suitable
O.J.C. No.14605 of 1997 Page 10 of 102
disciplined or faculties required for the needs of the
public sector undertakings are not available with the
existing training institutions, the Project authorities
should undertake to fund and start such training
courses which will equip candidates for employment
in the public sector undertakings. Such training
given at the cost of public sector undertakings
should not be presumed to be a commitment for
ultimate employment in the undertaking concerned.
The main idea is to enable some members of the
evictee family to qualify themselves for employment
and compete for the same along with the other.
(v) In the context of the urgent necessity of public sector
enterprises operating at commercially viable levels
and generating adequate internal resources, over
meaning has to be guarded against. Any
understanding, formal or informal, in regard
to offer of employment to one member of every
dispossessed family in the project will stand
withdrawn. However, with a view to encouraging
the dispossessed families taking to useful
avocations like poultry farming, animal husbandry
etc. the project authorities will assist the concerned
State Governments in organising and financing such
activities. The basic responsibility of initiating such
scheme will be that of the State Governments.
(vi) The progress of rehabilitation of the dispossessed
families will be monitored by the Rehabilitation Cells
in the same manner as monitoring of the
implementation of the project.
(vii) Where the dispossessed persons are tribals, the
Ministry of Welfare and Ministry of Tribal
O.J.C. No.14605 of 1997 Page 11 of 102
Environment and Forests should also be associated
with the preparation of their rehabilitation schemes.
(viii) The entire cost of rehabilitation covered in the
preceding paragraphs should form part of the project
cost. The amount which is required exclusively for
rehabilitation purposes should form part of project
and the financial calculations should take into
account these costs while working out the economics
of the project. If need be, the amount that is required
for meeting the rehabilitation cost may be given by
the Government either as grant or as equity
depending upon the merits of each case.
5. The undersigned is directed to bring the foregoing
decisions of Government which apply equally to
public sector enterprises, departmental undertakings
and directly executed works of the Central
Government to the notice of all Ministers/
Departments of the Government of India and to
request that suitable instructions may be issued to
all the offices/enterprises under their control to give
effect to these decision.
Sd/-
(T.S. Ratnam)
Adviser (Construction)”
2.4. The opposite party No.4, the Plant Manager vide Letter
No. Indian/BLS/1/88 dated 09.05.1989 requested the
Collector and District Magistrate, Balasore to sponsor
the names of the land losers, so that steps would be
taken for appointment of suitable person from each land
loser’s family in the LPG Bottling Plant. Pursuant to the
O.J.C. No.14605 of 1997 Page 12 of 102
said Letter dated 09.05.1989, the Additional District
Magistrate, Balasore vide Letter dated 19.05.1989
forwarded the list of names along with necessary
particulars of the land losers. Nevertheless, the name of
the petitioner, as nominee of his grandmother, was not
sponsored.
2.5. The District Employment Officer, Balasore in Letter
No.79(3) dated 09.01.1995 requested Smt. Suryamani
Mohanty, whose land was acquired, “for submitting the
name of one of her relations as nominee for appointment
on rehabilitation scheme in the Indian Oil Corporation”.
Said Suryamani Mohanty in pursuance of the letter
dated 09.01.1995 of the District Employment Officer,
Balasore furnished nomination in favour of her grandson
(petitioner) and requested the opposite parties including
the Collector, Balasore for his appointment under the
Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme.
2.6. To ventilate his grievance, the petitioner approached this
Court by way of filing writ petition, being O.J.C. No.2156
of 1995, that came to be disposed of with the following
order on 09.09.1996:
“1. Heard learned counsel for parties.
2. The grievance so far as present writ petition is
concerned does not survive because the petitioner
was unsuccessful at the interview at which on the
basis of interim order dated, 6.4.1995 passed in
O.J.C. No.14605 of 1997 Page 13 of 102
Misc. Case No.2051 of 1995 he was allowed to
appear. It is stated that though several others
who were not successful at the interview have
been asked to appear at the interview
scheduled to be held on 25.09.1996, petitioner
has not been issued any call notice.
3. Mr. Sanjit Mohanty, learned counsel appearing
for the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., states that
the Collector, Balasore had written to the
Corporation for nomination in favour of the
petitioner, which was done earlier, was not
given effect to.
4. It is the case of petitioner that before action was
taken by the Collector, Balasore and Letter dated
16.01.1995 was written to the District Employment
Officer, Balasore he was not heard in the matter.
Unfortunately on the basis of a request made
by Manjulata Mohanty, petitioner’s nomination
was not to be given effect to.
5. No counter affidavit has been filed by the Collector,
Balasore. The Corporation may permit the petitioner
to appear at the interview subject to determination of
the question of eligibility of petitioner to be
considered by the Collector, Balasore, within one
month from today. Said exercise shall be undertaken
after due notice to aforesaid Manjulata Mohanty
while considering the question of petitioner’s
eligibility. The result so far as interview is
concerned shall not be published for one
month, i.e., till the Collector intimates the
Corporation about the question of eligibility of
petitioner.
O.J.C. No.14605 of 1997 Page 14 of 102
The writ application is disposed of accordingly.
Copies of our order be handed over to learned
counsel for State and the Corporation for ensuing
compliance.
Urgent certified copy of the order on proper
application be granted by tomorrow.”
2.7. The Collector, Balasore vide Letter No.4/LA, dated
03.01.1997 intimated the Managing Director of the
Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Kolkata that:
“In pursuance of the direction issued by the Hon’ble High
Court of Orissa vide Orders passed on 09.09.1996 in
O.J.C. No.2156 of 1995, Sri Pratap Chandra Mohanty, the
petitioner in the above O.J.C. as well as Smt. Manjulata
Mohanty are eligible land loser’s candidates for
employment in Indian Oil Corporation Limited subject to
other prescribed conditions for the job”.
2.8. The opposite party No.3 vide Letter dated 18.09.1996
called upon the petitioner for personal interview on
27.09.1996; relevant portion of the said Letter is
reproduced hereunder:
“Sub.: Recruitment for the post of Junior Operator (F);
Scale Rs.2234-3504/-
Your name has been sponsored for employment from
Employment Exchange for the post of Junior
Operator (Field) in this Corporation in the grade of
Rs.2,234/- — Rs.3,504/-.
The eligibility norms laid down for the above post
are as follows:
O.J.C. No.14605 of 1997 Page 15 of 102
Qualification : SSC (X Std.)
Age : 40 years as on 30.04.1996
Experience : Minimum 2 years experience
as Khalasi
If you are fulfilling the above requirements,
please call on us at the above address on
27.09.1996 at 10.00 a.m. for test/personal
interview. If you do not fulfil any of the above
norms, you will not be permitted to attend the
test/interview and you may ignore this call
letter.
When you come for the test/interview, you should
bring with you the original certificates/testimonials
in support of your qualification, age, experience
together with photocopy of the certificates,
testimonials and the enclosed declaration form duly
filled and signed by you. You are required to affix
one photograph in the space provided on the
declaration form.
In case you are employed in a Government
Department, Quasi Government or in Public
Undertaking, you should bring a certificate issued
by your employer giving their no objection to
consider you for employment in this Corporation.
Please note that you will not be allowed to appear
for the test/interview if you do not bring:-
(a) Any of the documents mentioned above at the
time of test/interview.
(b) No objection certificate in case you are
employed in Government Department, Quasi
Government or Public Undertakings.
O.J.C. No.14605 of 1997 Page 16 of 102
Please also note that you will not be paid Rail/Bus
fare in connection with this test/interview.
No request for change in the date of test/interview
will be entertained. Please note that we are not in
any way responsible nor do we take any liability
towards any candidate who does not receive the call
letter or other communication in the matter in time
due to postal or any other such delays.
This letter is issued as per order passed by
Hon’ble High Court, Orissa and other
conditions shall also be governed by the above
order of the Court.
Yours truly,
for Indian Oil Corporation Lmited
(M.D.)
Sd/-
Deputy General Manager (HR) ”
2.9. The petitioner, having qualified High School Certificate
Examination, considering himself to have experience as
‘Khalasi’, in response to the call Letter dated
18.09.1996, faced the interview on 27.09.1996 which
was conducted by the opposite party No.3. The interview
being held on 27.09.1996, the Collector, Balasore vide
Letter dated 03.01.1997 intimated the fact to the
opposite party No.3, the result of the interview was not
published by the opposite parties.
2.10. The opposite parties also conducted interview in the
month of July, 1997 and prepared a panel list of six
O.J.C. No.14605 of 1997 Page 17 of 102
other selected persons for their appointment in the LPG
Bottling Plant, but name of the present petitioner did not
find place either in the list of the persons selected for
appointment or in the panel list prepared by the opposite
parties for providing appointment in future. Out of the
seventeen persons including the present petitioner were
considered for appointment in the LPG Bottling Plant of
the Indian Oil Corporation Limited, only four persons
have been ignored and/or deprived of such appointment
as three persons approached this Court earlier seeking
direction for their appointment. The petitioner, Trilochan
Das and Manjulata Mohanty had approached this Court
earlier for direction to the opposite parties for their
appointments in the Indian Oil Corporation limited and
all these three persons along with one Sukanti Manjari
Sethi have been ignored by the opposite parties in
providing appointments.
2.11. As per the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme and the
agreement made between opposite party No.1 and the
Collector and District Magistrate, Balasore at least one
person from each of the land losers’ families should be
appointed in the LPG Bottling Plant, but the said
principle has been given a go-bye. In certain cases, two
to three persons belonging to one family have been given
appointments, whereas even one person from the land
loser’s family has not been given appointment.
O.J.C. No.14605 of 1997 Page 18 of 102
2.12. With the above factual narration, the writ petitioner
sought for a direction to the opposite parties to provide
employment in the LPG Bottling Plant of the Indian Oil
Corporation Limited at Balasore or in the alternative at
any other suitable place.
Response of the opposite party Nos.1 to 4:
3. Refuting the averments and the contentions set out in
the writ petition and opposing grant of relief claimed by
the petitioner, a counter affidavit dated 18.07.2014 has
been filed by the opposite party Nos.1 to 4, wherein
categorical stand has been spelt out as follows:
“03. The petitioner in this writ petition has prayed for a
direction for his appointment under the rehabilitation
scheme in the LPG Bottling Plant at Balasore or at
any other place. The petitioner has no legally
enforceable right to claim appointment. The
prayer being devoid of merit is liable to be
dismissed.
***
05. That the averments in para 1 of the writ petition are
matters of record and need no reply. However, it is
stated that there is no cause of action for this
writ petition as the petitioner was not selected
pursuant to interview dated 12.04.1995 and
27.09.1996.
06. That the averments made in para 2 of the writ
petition are disputed and denied. No illegality or
arbitrariness can be attributable to the opposite
O.J.C. No.14605 of 1997 Page 19 of 102
parties 1 to 3 in not giving appointment to the
petitioner under the rehabilitation scheme in the LPG
Bottling Plant at Balasore. With regard to the
order dated 09.09.1996 of this Hon’ble Court in
OJC No.2156 of 1995, it is humbly stated that
the Hon’ble Court’s order has been duly
complied. He was issued a call letter pursuant to
order of this Hon’ble Court as evident from
Annexure-3 dated 18.09.1996. This was a one time
measure which is over.
07. That the averments made in para 3 of the writ
petition needs no reply. It is stated that Indian Oil
Corporation is a Government Company within the
meaning of Article 617 of the Companies Act. But
there is no cause of action for this writ petition
as the petitioner had faced the interview and
found unsuitable.
08. That in reply to the averments made in para 4 of the
writ petition it is stated that certain lands were
acquired by the statutory authority for establishment
of Liquefied Petroleum Gas Bottling Plant of Indian
Oil Corporation at Balasore. The land losers were
given due compensation, deposited with the
statutory authority. The rest of the averments that
Ac.0.075 dec. of the grandmother of the petitioner
who lost her only agriculture land is matter of
record, best known to State Authorities.
09. That the averments made in para 5 of the writ
petition are denied that Indian Oil Corporation
entered into an agreement with the Collector
and the District Magistrate, Balasore, in
pursuance to the Circular of the Ministry of
Petroleum & Natural Gas No.J/25011747/6-GEN
O.J.C. No.14605 of 1997 Page 20 of 102
dated 21.02.1986 that each land loser family
or other nominee will be provided with a
suitable job in the bottling plant of the
opposite party No.1 as alleged. The petitioner is
put to strict proof thereof. That Annexure-1 dated
21.02.1986 speaks for itself and needs no reply.
10. That the averments made in para 6 of the writ
petition are disputed and denied save and except
what are matters on record. The relevant part of the
Order dated 09.09.1996 under Annexure-2 is quoted
hereunder:
‘The grievance so far as present writ petition is
concerned does not survive because the
petitioner was unsuccessful at the interview at
which on the basis of interim order dated
06.04.1995 passed in Misc. Case No.2051 of
1995 he was allowed to appear.’
It is stated that pursuant to order dated 09.09.1996
of this Hon’ble Court at Annexure-2, the petitioner
was called for interview on 27.09.1996 as at
Annexure-3.
11. That the averments made in para 7 of the writ
petition are disputed and denied. The petitioner
was issued with call letter dated 18.09.1996,
the interview was conducted on 27.09.1996 by
the Selection Committee duly constituted by
the competent authority as per the policy of
the Indian Oil Corporation and the petitioner
was unsuccessful, hence not selected. It is
denied that in the interview only three questions are
asked which the petitioner answered correctly. The
Selection Committee found him unsuitable.
O.J.C. No.14605 of 1997 Page 21 of 102
12. In reply to para 8 of the writ petition it is stated that
the Collector’s Letter dated 03.01.1997 in no
uncertain terms states:
‘Sri Pratap Chandra Mohanty, the petitioner in
the above O.J.C. as well as Smt. Manjulata
Mohanty are eligible land loser’s candidates for
employment in Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. subject
to other prescribed conditions for the job.’
13. That the averments made in para 9 of the writ
petition are disputed and denied. It is denied that
the petitioner being nominee was eligible for
appointment and the result of the interview was not
published as per the order of the Hon’ble Court. The
petitioner called for interview on 27.09.1996 and
was unsuccessful.
Copy of the intimation, Attendance at the interview
and result sheet of the interview are filed herewith
as Annexure-A/4 (Series).
The allegation the interview was held on July, 1997
and 7 persons were appointed, a panel of 6 other
selected has been prepared is of no consequence as
he was unsuccessful in the interview dated
27.09.1996.
It is submitted that the order of the Hon’ble High
Court in OJC No.2156 of 1995 is clear and
unambiguous. The order dated 09.09.1996 of this
Hon’ble Court has been complied with and the
petitioner was called for interview and was
unsuccessful. The deponent states that the said 7
persons have not been impleaded as parties to give
an effective reply.
O.J.C. No.14605 of 1997 Page 22 of 102
14. That the averments made in para 10 of the writ
petition need no reply save and except what are
matter record. It is humbly stated that the name
sponsored by the Collector were called for the
interview.
15. That the allegations made in para 11 of the writ
petition are denied. It is denied that out of 17
persons only 4 persons have been ignored and/or
deprived of appointment as because out of aforesaid
4 persons, 3 persons approached the Hon’ble Court
earlier seeking direction for their appointment as
alleged. The deponent states that the petitioner
had appeared for the test/interview on
27.09.1996 and he was not found suitable by
the selection Committee.
It is vehemently denied that persons/candidates
who have been able to give illegal gratifications have
been considered eligible for appointed. It is also
denied that the petitioner was not considered for
any appointment since he failed to give the illegal
gratification.
16. That the statement made in para 12 of the writ
petition are disputed and denied. It is denied that
any agreement was entered between the
opposite party No.1 and the Collector and
District Magistrate, Balasore, that at least one
person from each land loser’s family would be
appointed in the LPG Bottling Plant. It is
submitted that IOC has adhered to the list as given
by the Collector for the purpose of conducting
interviews and appointment. The allegation of
financial gain is stoutly denied.
O.J.C. No.14605 of 1997 Page 23 of 102
17. That the statement/allegations in para 13 of the writ
petition are denied. It is denied that the petitioner
has been ignored and/or deprived of getting any
appointment because he approached Hon’ble High
Court earlier and further could not satisfy the
appointing authorities by giving illegal gratification.
The petitioner is put to strict proof of the wild
allegation.
18. ***
19. That the statement in para 15 of the writ petition are
denied. It is strongly denied that the petitioner has
been deprived of getting such appointment because
he approached the Hon’ble Court earlier and further
could not satisfy in giving the illegal gratification.
20. ***
21. That the prayer for appointment in LPG Bottling
Plant being devoid of any merit is liable to be
dismissed. At the cost of repetition it is stated
that the petitioner was called for the interview
twice on 12.04.1995 and 27.09.1996, his
candidature was considered and rejected.
Hence no relief is available to be granted after
17 years. The Rehabilitation Assistance is a
one time measure which has been over since
long. Moreover, petitioner was unsuccessful in
the interview.”
Reply of the petitioner to such counter affidavit:
4. A rejoinder affidavit have been sworn to by Pratap
Chandra Mohanty (petitioiner) on 08.02.2024 disclosing
his age to be “about 49 years” (though in the year 1997
O.J.C. No.14605 of 1997 Page 24 of 102
he stated to be at the age of about 25 years) has come to
be filed with the following assertions:
“4. That with regard to the averments made in
paragraph-6 of the counter affidavit, it is a fact that
the petitioner had earlier filed OJC No.2156 of 1995,
which was disposed of by this Hon’ble Court on
09.09.1996 vide Annexure-2.
5. That with regard to the averments made in
paragraph-7 of the counter affidavit, it is humbly
stated that it is false to allege that there is no cause
of action for the petitioner to file the present writ
petition. There is no provision for conducting an
interview and awarding of any mark. Further, if
any interview is conducted and the petitioner is
found unsuitable, as per the scheme under
Annexure-1, the petitioner would have been
given adequate training to make him equipped
to get the job.
6. That with regard to the averments made in
paragraph-8 of the counter affidavit, it is
humbly stated that Ac.0.075 decimals of land
has been acquired, which was recorded in the
Record-of-Right in the name of the grandfather
and granduncles of the petitioner. Further,
some other lands, which were purchased by the
grandfather of the petitioner, have also been
acquired. For kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court, a
true copy of the Record-of-Right of Khata No.93 of
Mouza: Bamapada recorded in the name of
Jagannath Mohanty, the grandfather of the present
petitioner along with others which is acquired is
annexed herewith as Annexure-6 and the voter
O.J.C. No.14605 of 1997 Page 25 of 102
identity card of the father of the present petitioner to
show that his father-Sadhu Charan Mohanty is the
son of Jagannath Mohanty, one of the recorded
tenant of Khata No.93 is annexed herewith as
Annexure-7.
***
8. That with regard to the averments made in
paragraphs-11 and 13 of the counter affidavit, it is
humbly stated that though the petitioner was called
upon for the interview and in the interview, he was
only asked his name, the name of the local MLA and
MP which he correctly answered, but he has been
shown unsuccessful in the interview.
It is humbly stated that as per the scheme, if
one is found unsuitable for the post, he has to
be given adequate training to make him
equipped for the same.
9. That the averments made in paragraphs-10 and 12
of the counter affidavit are matter of record and
hence need no reply.
10. That with regard to the averments made in
paragraph-15 of the counter affidavit, it is humbly
stated that ineligible persons, who are not the real
nominee of the land loser, being not related to by
blood, has been given appointment. Further, from
one family more than one person have also been
given appointment. It is humbly stated that on the
direction of this Hon’ble Court in connected W.P.(C)
No.12832 of 2008
1, CBI enquiry was conducted with
1
Relates to Sri Trilochan Das Vrs. Indian Oil Corporation Limited and others,
W.P.(C) No.12832 of 2008. The Indian Oil Corporation approached Division
Bench of this Court in writ appeal, being W.A. No.112 of 2016 (Indian Oil
O.J.C. No.14605 of 1997 Page 26 of 102
regard to the irregularities and illegalities in giving
appointment to the land loser’s family. The CBI after
due enquiry has submitted its report clearly
indicating how illegality and irregularity have been
made while giving appointment. For kind perusal of
the Hon’ble Court a true copy of the enquiry report
submitted by the CBI in W.P.(C) No.12832 of 2008
and which has been handed over to the counsel for
the petitioner in that case as per the direction of this
Hon’ble Court is annexed herewith as Annexure-8.
11. That the other averments are not correct and those
are denied specifically. It is humbly stated that the
petitioner has approached this Hon’ble Court in right
time, but the delay is caused because the case was
Corporation Limited Vrs. Trilochan Das and others), challenging Order dated
10.12.2015 of the learned Single Judge passed in said writ petition directing the
CBI to conduct enquiry whether any illegality or irregularity has been
committed in giving compassionate appointment de hors the Rehabilitation
Assistance Scheme. Having taken cognizance of the CBI Report dated
21.12.2017 furnished by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBI, ACB,
Bhubaneswar, disposed of the said writ appeal with the following Order on
28.11.2022:
“1. The report dated 21st December, 2017 of the Central Bureau of
Investigation (CBI) which was placed in a sealed cover before this Court
has been perused. The operative portion of the said report, which is in
Para-5.9 reads as under:
‘5.9. That, no quid-pro-quo, financial transactions etc. betwee n
the said seven ineligible candidates and IOCL Officials or
State Government Officials surfaced during the enquiry.
Though these seven ineligible candidates, who are not the
direct descendants of land losers, were duly nominated by
the land losers and later on they were appointed by IOCL
contrary to the applicable rules and guidelines of
IOCL/Government of India.’
2. In view of the above conclusion of the CBI, the directions issued by the
learned Single Judge in the impugned order have worked themselves out.
Accordingly, without expressing any view on the appropriateness of the
directions issued by the learned Single Judge which were questioned in
the present appeal and without any expression of any view by the Court
on merits, the present writ appeal is disposed of. The interim order passed
earlier stands vacated.
3. A copy of the said report of the CBI be furnished by the Registry both to
learned counsel appearing for the Appellants as well as counsel for
Respondent No.1. Thereafter the report be again placed in a sealed cover
and kept with the Registrar (Judicial).”
O.J.C. No.14605 of 1997 Page 27 of 102
not listed, for which the petitioner was never
negligent.”
Hearing:
5. This matter came up for hearing quite number of
occasions, but the matter being adjourned on one
pretext or the other, was finally taken up for hearing on
20.03.2026 and this Court heard arguments advanced
by the counsel for the respective parties.
5.1. While the matter was kept reserved for preparation of
Judgment, written note of submission dated 30.03.2026
prepared by the learned Advocate for the petitioner has
been filed with the endorsement of the learned Advocate
for the opposite party Nos.1 to 4 acknowledging receipt
of a copy thereof on 06.04.2026.
5.2. As the written note of submission of the petitioner came
to be filed after the matter was kept reserved for
preparation and pronouncement of Judgment, while
dictating this Judgment, it was felt necessary for
bringing the matter for further hearing and/or
ascertaining from the counsel for the opposite parties if
they wished to add anything more.
5.3. The matter being listed on 22.05.2026, upon further
hearing from the counsels, the written note of
submission has been taken on record.
5.4. The matter stood reserved for preparation of Judgment.
O.J.C. No.14605 of 1997 Page 28 of 102
Consideration of submissions of counsel for the
respective parties and analysis thereof with respect to
CBI Report submitted in the case of Indian Oil
Corporation Limited Vrs. Trilochan Das, W.A. No.112 of
2016, disposed of on 28.11.2022:
6. It is submitted by Sri Banshidhar Baug, learned Senior
Advocate assisted by Sri Gyanaranjan Sahoo, learned
Advocate that irregularities and illegalities emanating
from CBI Report dated 21.12.2017 would clinch the
issue of depriving the petitioner of employment in the
Indian Oil Corporation Limited. It is strenuously urged
that seven persons, not being direct descendants of land
losers, were given employment/appointment and in the
case of Trilochan Das Vrs. Indian Oil Corporation Limited,
W.P.(C) No.12832 of 2008, direction was issued by
learned Single Judge vide Order dated 10.12.2015 for
conducting enquiry by CBI. Assailing the same the
opposite party Nos.1 to 4 approached the Division Bench
in the Writ Appeal bearing No.112 of 2016, which came
to be disposed of on 28.11.2022. It is admitted in the
written note of submission filed by the petitioner that:
“In pursuance of the direction of this Hon’ble Court dated
06.02.2026 passed in another writ petition, i.e., W.P.(C)
No.12832 of 2008 vide Annexure-8 to 34 of the rejoinder
affidavit, the CBI has submitted its report in detail
disclosing the irregularities and illegalities committed by
the opposite parties in giving appointment under the
rehabilitation scheme. The said CBI report has not
O.J.C. No.14605 of 1997 Page 29 of 102
been entertained by the Division Bench of this
Hon’ble Court in Writ Appeal No.112 of 2016.
The CBI in its report (Annexure-8 to the rejoinder affidavit)
from paragraph 4.10.3 to last has in detail discussed the
illegalities committed by the IOCL, the opposite parties in
giving appointment to really land losers family.”
6.1. Careful perusal of the Report of CBI as enclosed with
rejoinder affidavit reveals that the same does not relate
to the present petitioner. The enquiry does not suggest
illegality/irregularity or otherwise pertaining to interview
conducted pursuant to Order dated 09.09.1996 passed
in O.J.C. No.2156 of 1995 on 27.09.1996 qua the
present petitioner and Smt. Manjulata Mohanty.
Therefore, relying on the CBI Report submitted in the
context of Trilochan Das Vrs. Indian Oil Corporation
Limited, W.P.(C) No.12832 of 2008 has no bearing to the
fact-situation of the present case. The insistence of the
learned Senior Counsel for consideration of such CBI
Report submitted in the case of Trilochan Das (supra,
which is still sub judice) is misconceived more
particularly so when in the said case the Division Bench
of this Court while disposing of the writ appeal directed
“the report be again placed in a sealed cover and kept
with the Registrar (Judicial)”. It is un-understandable as
to how the petitioner laid his hands on such Report
which is yet kept in sealed cover for consideration by the
learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.12832 of 2008 and
O.J.C. No.14605 of 1997 Page 30 of 102
could assert facts to broaden the horizon of the present
writ petition. Whereas the Report of CBI relating to
certain other persons in connection with direction of the
learned Single Judge in the writ petition filed at the
behest of Trilochan Das (supra) having been perused by
the learned Division Bench, while disposing of the writ
appeal against interim order directing the CBI to enquire
into the matter qua seven appointees, who were alleged
to be not direct descendants of the land losers, directed
to be placed in sealed cover, it is strange and queer that
this petitioner could enclose copy of such Report of the
CBI with the rejoinder affidavit by affirming that “the
facts stated above are true to the best of my knowledge”.
6.2. At paragraph 10 the rejoinder affidavit filed by the
petitioner on 08.02.2024 enclosing therewith the copy of
said Report as Annexure-8 it is disclosed that “a true
copy of the enquiry report submitted by the enquiry report
submitted by the CBI in W.P.(C) No.12832 of 2008” “has
been handed over to the counsel for the petitioner in that
case as per direction of this Hon’ble Court”. It emerges on
cursory glance at Order dated 28.11.2022 passed in
W.A. No.112 of 2016 that the Division Bench directed
furnishing a copy of said CBI Report to the counsel for
the petitioner therein, namely, Trilochan Das. In the said
writ appeal, the name of present petitioner, namely
Pratap Chandra Mohanty, was not reflected in the array
O.J.C. No.14605 of 1997 Page 31 of 102
of parties to the proceeding. A privileged communication
could not have been utilised for the purpose of
adjudicating a case relating to other person, who was
not party to the proceeding. None of the persons who
were provided with employed and alleged to be distant
relations or not direct descendants of the land losers are
impleaded as parties to the present proceeding. This
Court further deprecates such affirmation as made by
the petitioner, Pratap Chandra Mohanty, in the instant
case by way of rejoinder affidavit. The persistent request
of Sri Banshidhar Baug, learned Senior Counsel to
utilise the said Report of CBI to the detriment of these
persons, being untested material, is repelled.
6.3. Another facet of argument canvassed by the learned
Senior Advocate proceeded to suggest that there was
illegality or irregularity in conduct of the interview by the
Selection Committee. The petitioner did not choose to
implead the appointees or the authorities against whom
he alleges illegality or irregularity in conducting the
interview.
6.4. In Ajay Mishra Vrs. Director General of Ordinance Service
M.G.O. Branch (O.S.-8-C) Army Head Quarter, D.H.Q.,
2006 (1) Indian Law Reporter Allahabad Series 1 (All) it
has been observed as follows:
“11. It is a settled law where a mala fide is alleged, the
authority, who has passed the order, which is said
O.J.C. No.14605 of 1997 Page 32 of 102
to be the result of the mala fide exercise of power,
has to be impleaded eo nominee. In the absence of
such impleadment, the Court neither can look into
the plea of mala fide nor can consider the issue
raising mala fide.
12. In State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 Supp (1)
SCC 222 in para 55 of the judgment, the Apex Court
held as under:
‘It is a settled law that the person against whom
mala fides or bias was imputed should be
impleaded eo nominee as a party respondent to the
proceedings and given an opportunity to meet those
allegations. In his/her absence no enquiry into those
allegations would be made. Otherwise it itself is
violative of the principles of natural justice as it
amounts to condemning a person without an
opportunity. Admittedly, both R.K. Singh and G.N.
Sharma were not impleaded. On this ground alone
the High Court should have stopped enquiry into the
allegation of mala fides or bias alleged against them.
13. In AIR 1996 Supreme Court 326, J.N. Banavalikar
Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, in para 21 of the
judgment, it has been held as under:
‘Further in the absence of impleadment of the *** the
person who had allegedly passed mala fide order in
order to favour such junior doctor, any contention of
mala fide action in fact i.e. malice in fact should not
be countenanced by the Court.’
14. In JT 1996 (8) SC 550, A.I.S.B. Officers Federation
and others Vs. Union of India and others, in para 23,
the Hon’ble Apex Court has said where a person,
who has passed the order and against whom the
O.J.C. No.14605 of 1997 Page 33 of 102
plea of mala fide has been taken has not been
impleaded, the petitioner cannot be allowed to raise
the allegations of mala fide. The relevant observation
of the Apex Court relevant are reproduced as under:
‘The person against whom mala fides are alleged
must be made a party to the proceeding. Board of
Directors of the Bank sought to favour respondents 4
and 5 and, therefore, agreed to the proposal put
before it. Neither the Chairman nor the Directors,
who were present in the said meeting, have been
impleaded as respondents. This being so the
petitioners cannot be allowed to raise the allegations
of mala fide, which allegations, in fact, are without
merit.’
Recently in AIR 2003 Supreme Court 1344,
Federation of Railway Officers Association Vs. Union
of India it has been held as under:
‘That allegations regarding mala fides cannot be
vaguely made and it must be specified and clear. In
this context, the concerned Minister who is stated to
be involved in the formation of new Zone at Hazipur
is not made a party who can meet the allegations.’
***”
6.5. A Division Bench of this Court in Jagdamba Polymers
Pvt. Ltd. Vrs. State of Odiaha, W.P.(C) No.10555 of 2008,
vide Judgment dated 17.09.2008 held,
“11. There has to be very strong and convincing evidence
to establish the allegations of mala fides specifically
alleged in the petition as the same cannot merely be
presumed. The presumption is in favour of the bona
fides of the order unless contradicted by acceptable
O.J.C. No.14605 of 1997 Page 34 of 102
material. (Vide State of U.P. Vrs. Dr. V.N. Prasad,
1995 Suppl (2) SCC 151; Arvind Dattatraya Dhande
Vrs. State of Maharashtra, (1997) 6 SCC 169; Utkal
University Vrs. Dr. Nrusingha Charan Sarangi,
(1999) 2 SCC 193; Kiran Gupta Vrs. State of U.P.,
(2000) 7 SCC 719; and Netai Bag Vrs. State of W.B.,
(2000) 8 SCC 262).
***
13. In First Land Acquisition Collector Vrs. Nirodhi
Prakash Gangoli, (2002) 4 SCC 160; and Jasvinder
Singh Vrs. State of J&K, (2003) 2 SCC 132, the Apex
Court held that burden of proving mala fides is very
heavy on the person who alleges it. Mere allegation
is not enough. Party making such altregations is
under the legal obligation to place specific materials
before the Court to substantiate the said allegations.
14. More so, it is settled legal proposition that in case
allegations of mala fide are made against any
person he is to be impleaded by name, otherwise the
allegations cannot be considered. (Vide State of
Bihag Vrs. P.P. Sharma, I.A.S. Of Delhi, AIR 1996 SC
326; All India State Bank Officers’ Federation Vrs.
Union of India, (1997) 9 SCC 151; and I.K. Mishra
Vrs. Union of India, (1997) 6 SCC 228.)
15. In Federation of Rly. Officers’ Association Vrs. Union
of India, AIR 2003 SC 1344, the Apex Court has held
that the allegation of mala fide has to be specifically
made and the person against whom such allegations
are made has to be impleaded and his absence such
allegations cannot be taken into consideration.”
O.J.C. No.14605 of 1997 Page 35 of 102
6.6. In the above context see also Madhuchhanda Sahoo Vrs.
Odisha State Health and Family Welfare Society,
Government of Odisha, 2024 ILR-CUT ONLINE 218;
Ramesh Chandra Behera Vrs. Union of India, 2023 SCC
OnLine Ori 6499.
In the present case, the plea has been raised that unfair
treatment has been meted out to the petitioner whereas
certain persons, being distant relations or not direct
descendants of land losers, have been given
employments under the Rehabilitation Assistance
Scheme. Such a plea in view of the aforesaid discussions
with case laws cannot be examined inasmuch as the
petitioner consciously ignored to implead the necessary
and proper party. The allegation of mala fide, if any, has
been raised without giving the details or relevant
material. It could also not be substantiated by
furnishing the relevant documents. In the absence of
any such material such plea cannot be looked into and
has to be rejected.
6.7. It is manifest from Order dated 28.11.2022 of the
Division Bench passed in W.A. No.112 of 2016 that
cognizance of following fact, as unravelled in the said
Report of CBI, has been taken:
“That, no quid-pro-quo, financial transactions etc.
between the said seven ineligible candidates and
IOCL Officials or State Government Officials
O.J.C. No.14605 of 1997 Page 36 of 102
surfaced during the enquiry. Though these seven
ineligible candidates, who are not the direct descendants
of land losers, were duly nominated by the land losers
and later on they were appointed by IOCL contrary to the
applicable rules and guidelines of IOCL/Government of
India.”
6.8. In the above view of the matter, it is, thus, prominent
that this case is confined to directions contained in the
Order dated 09.09.1996 passed in O.J.C. No.2156 of
1995. Be that be, as the CBI Report as would reveal from
Order dated 28.11.2022 passed in W.A. No.112 of 2016
makes it unequivocal that there was “no quid pro quo,
financial transactions etc. between the said seven
ineligible candidates and IOCL Officials or State
Government Officials surfaced during the enquiry”.
6.9. Under the above premise it is unsafe to accept the
contention of the learned Senior Advocate and proceed to
conduct fishing and roving enquiry by considering such
CBI Report, which is still in sealed cover tagged to
W.P.(C) No.12832 of 2008, filed at the behest of Trilochan
Das, for considering the factual merit of the present
petitioner, who was not found suitable for the post of
“Junior Operator (Field)”. Hence, the argument advanced
by Sri Banshidhar Baug, learned Senior Advocate on
this point is repulsed.
Consideration of other submissions of counsel for the
respective parties and analysis thereof vis-a-vis grounds
O.J.C. No.14605 of 1997 Page 37 of 102
with reference to written note of submission dated
30.03.2026:
7. Sri Banshidhar Baug, learned Senior Advocate would
submit that the Circular in Letter dated 03.02.1986
issued by the Ministry of Industry, Department of Public
Enterprise as adopted by the Government of India in the
Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas vide Annexure-1,
under the Heading “Rehabilitation” in Clause 4 at sub-
clause (ii) lays down that “Rehabilitation Assistance will
be limited to those, whose land or homesteads are
acquired provided they are themselves cultivating those
lands or residing in the homesteads”. Sub-clause (iii)
thereof states that “persons whose land holding have
been completely acquired will be given priority in
rehabilitation assistance as compared to others whose
land has been only partially acquired”. Sub-clause (iv) of
Clause 4 envisages that the Project Authorities will
examine the list of awardee families eligible for availing
benefit under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme
received from the Rehabilitation Cell with reference to
their educational attainments and making arrangement
for imparting them suitable education and training to
equip them to be considered for employment in the
Project, subject to availability of the vacancies. Such
training would be imparted through the existing and
available training institutes of the State and the Central
Government” at the cost of the Project Authorities.
O.J.C. No.14605 of 1997 Page 38 of 102
7.1. It is vehemently contended by the learned Senior
Counsel that it is only direct descendants of family
members who were qualified to be enlisted/empanelled
for appointment. The descendants like son(s) and in
absence of whom, son’s son and a child legally adopted,
would be eligible for enlistment. In the present case, the
name of the present petitioner and his grandmother was
intimated by the District Collector. The Rehabilitation
Cell was to identify one member from each land loser’s
family and such identified person was advised to get his
name registered at the concerned Employment
Exchange. The person who was identified was to be
provided with training as considered necessary to equip
him for the job against which he could be considered for
employment.
7.2. It is stated that in the present case, the terms of
guidelines have been given a go-bye by the opposite
parties. The reservation policy was not followed at all. It
is asserted that more than one person has been given
appointment from one land loser’s family and the person
not directly related to the land loser’s family has been
given appointment.
7.3. To buttress his argument that person who is either no
direct relation or distant relation of the land loser has
been given employment as nominees, Sri Banshidhar
Baug, learned Senior Advocate stemmed on an Inter-
O.J.C. No.14605 of 1997 Page 39 of 102
Office Memo being No.DP/4/10/38, dated 23.04.1987
issued by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited (copy of
which is available at the objection-affidavit dated
03.03.2023 filed by the opposite party Nos.1 to 4 on
23.03.2023) and would submit that the subject of land
acquisition and rehabilitation aspect has not been
appropriately considered by the authorities concerned.
Said Inter-Office communication reads as follows:
“Sub.: Preference in employment to those whose land
has been acquired.
Government have, from time to time, issued various
instructions on the above subject. Reviewing the
previous instructions, Ministry of Industry, Bureau of
Public Enterprises vide their OM No.15/13/84-BPE
(WC) dated 3rd February 1986 (copy of which is
already with the Division) had issued fresh
instructions on the subject of land acquisition and
rehabilitation aspects involved in major projects and
conveyed, among other things, the following:
‘In the context of the urgent necessity of public sector
enterprises operating at commercially viable levels
and generating adequate internal resources, over-
manning has to be guarded against. Any
understanding, formal or informal, in regard to offer
of employment to one member of every dispossessed
family in the project will stand withdrawn.’
In view of differing interpretations taken regarding
the true intent and purpose of Government
clarifications, it has been considered expedient to
spell out afresh as to what should be the policy of
O.J.C. No.14605 of 1997 Page 40 of 102
the Corporation with regard to those whose land is
acquired for a project. The Divisions had offered
comments in the matter, based upon which and in
supersession of all previous instructions on the
above subject, it is commended that the procedure
as given below be followed in future:
(1) Project Recruitment Cell should associate itself
with the District Administration of the State
concerned whose responsibility is to list out
under their signature the land-losers and their
family members along with particulars relating
to relationship, age and qualifications. Only
those family members would qualify to be
listed who are the direct descendents (son/s,
in the absence of whom son/s’/son/s) and a
child already legally adopted will be eligible for
enlistment.
Note: There is no bar to an unmarried daughter
being listed.
(2) Project Recruitment Cell shall identify one
member from each land-loser family who in
view of his educational background and age,
and with training inputs, could be considered
for employment as per laid-down job
specifications. Such identified persons may be
advised to get their names registered at the
concerned local employment exchange.
(3) Once the process of identification has been
completed and the list of persons finalised, no
further addition shall be made in the list for
any reason whatsoever.
O.J.C. No.14605 of 1997 Page 41 of 102
(4) The person so identified be provided training
as considered necessary to equip him for the
job against which he could be considered for
employment. (In this connection, the actual
land loser be required to swear an affidavit
about the identification of the candidate
identified for training and subsequent possible
employment depending upon the availability of
vacancies and the suitability of the candidates
for the same.)
For the purpose of training of the identified
persons, Training Department may organise
suitable training programmes preferably
through the existing and available training
institutions of the State/Central Government.
(5) The training as above shall not be presumed to
be a commitment for ultimate employment. The
main idea of the training is to enable the
identified members of the evicted families to
qualify themselves for employment and
compete for the same along with the others,
against regular vacancies. Identified persons
as mentioned above will have to fulfil the
requirements of the post relating to
qualification, age, etc., since it is not the
intention to dilute the prescribed requirements.
(6) In accordance with the prescribed Recruitment
Procedure, vacancies as and when arising,
shall be notified to the concerned employment
exchange with the request to sponsor the land-
loser candidates along with others. While
considering the list sponsored by the
employment exchange, those identified persons
O.J.C. No.14605 of 1997 Page 42 of 102
from amongst the land losers as mentioned
above will be considered and, all things being
equal, preferences shall be given to them. Out
of the identified and trained land losers
sponsored by employment exchange and found
suitable by applying above yardsticks, those
who land holdings have been fully acquired
shall be given preference in employment vis-a-
vis those who land has only been partially
acquired for the project.
(7) If necessary, the State Government concerned
be approached so that the employment
exchange sponsors the identified land losers as
on its live register and the requirement of the
Corporation’s recruitment procedure regarding
compulsory notification to employment
exchange, is also fulfilled.
(8) Since the identified land losers are to be given
suitable training for employment, it may not be
necessary to insist on the laid down
requirements relating to practical experience for
the post against which such identified persons
are considered. This relaxation in the matter of
practical experience shall be applicable only to
the trained identified candidates amongst the
land losers.
(9) Other procedure for the recruitment shall
continue to be followed including the
reservations for Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes, Ex-servicemen and
Physically Handicapped.
O.J.C. No.14605 of 1997 Page 43 of 102
(M.R. Gera)
Senior Personnel Manager”
7.4. It is vociferously submitted by the learned Senior
Counsel that success or otherwise in the interview pales
into insignificance inasmuch as the opposite parties
having not disputed or denied the nomination of the
petitioner as one of the family members being grandson
of land loser, steps should have been taken to offer
training to equip him to be considered for employment in
the Project.
8. Sri Sailesh Chandra Samantaray, learned Advocate
representing the opposite party Nos.1 to 4 in his reply
arguments emphatically placed that the direction
contained in Order dated 09.09.1996 passed in O.J.C.
No.2156 of 1995 having been complied with , and the
petitioner being found not qualified for the post of
“Junior Operator (Field)” no flaw can be attributed to the
opposite parties. Referring to documents at Annexure-
A/4 enclosed with the counter affidavit he submitted
that Pratap Chandra Mohanty (petitioner) being noticed,
attended the interview for the post of “Junior Operator
(Field)” along with Smt. Manju lata Mohanty on
27.09.1996. The Selection Committee having analysed
“Job Knowledge”, “Expression”, “General Intelligence”
and “Personality”, found the petitioner secured 6, 3, 4
and 3 marks respectively (in toto 16 marks), whereas
O.J.C. No.14605 of 1997 Page 44 of 102
Smt. Manjulata Mohanty could secure 9 marks in toto.
The result sheet of interview for the post of Junior
Operator (Field) conducted on 25-26-27/09/1996 by the
Selection Committee comprised of MGRS OPS, Dy.
Manager (P)/ ER and Dy. Manager (WEL)/ER revealed
that:
“1. Total number of candidates
nominated by Employment Exchange : 138
2. Interview letter issued : 138
3. Appeared for interview : 130
4. Qualified : 40
5. Disqualified in test : 90 ”
The result of the petitioner and Smt. Manjulata Mohanty
declared on 30.09.1996 specified as follows:
“These two candidates have been listed separately as
they have gone to Court, in the capacity of land losers.
They have not been found suitable.”
8.1. Sri Sailesh Chandra Samantaray, learned Advocate
representing the Indian Oil Corporation Limited, would
urge that this Court in the case of Indian Oil Corporation
Vrs. Trilochan Das, W.A. No.112 of 2016, vide Order
dated 28.11.2022 took note of Report of CBI prepared
pursuant to Order dated 10.12.2015 of the learned
Single Judge in Trilochan Das Vrs. Indian Oil Corporation
Limited, W.P.(C) No.12832 of 2008 to the effect that there
was no financial irregularity nor was there quid pro quo
in selecting the candidates for employment under the
O.J.C. No.14605 of 1997 Page 45 of 102
Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme qua land acquisition.
He strenuously argued that the said report is not
relevant for the purpose of deciding the disputed fact
emanating from the instant claim of the petitioner
inasmuch as said Report is confined to enquiry being
conducted on the allegation in Trilochan Das (supra).
8.2. Stress being laid he thus submitted that having accepted
the direction vide Order dated 09.09.1996 passed in
O.J.C. No.2156 of 1995 filed at the behest of the present
petitioner himself, he participated in the interview along
with Smt. Manjulata Mohanty. After such participation
both of them could not secure qualifying marks and
consequently both the candidates were found “not
suitable” for the post of “Junior Operator (Field)”. By
expanding his argument he would submit that had the
petitioner qualified in the interview which is general in
nature, for undertaking the technical job, the authorities
could have proceeded to impart training in terms of
Clause 4 of the Office Memorandum dated 03.02.1986.
8.3. It is hence submitted by Sri Sailesh Chandra
Samantaray, learned Advocate that the writ petition
being misconceived and the interview being conducted to
comply with the order of this Court in earlier round of
litigation, the allegations and averments of the petitioner
are liable to be dispelled.
O.J.C. No.14605 of 1997 Page 46 of 102
9. Such contentions and arguments being canvassed before
this Court, it is to be examined whether the petitioner is
entitled to appointment in the LPG Bottling Plant,
Balasore or any other suitable place as prayed for in the
writ petition.
9.1. The writ petitioner has set forth in paragraph 7 of the
writ application that he passed High School Certificate
Examination and had the experience of Khalasi. This
Court in Division Bench vide Order dated 09.09.1996
observed that the petitioner had not been issued any call
notice for the interview and directed in O.J.C. No.2156 of
1995 that the Indian Oil Corporation Limited would
“permit the petitioner to appear at the interview subject to
determination of the question of eligibility of petitioner to
be considered by the Collector, Balasore, within one
month from today”. Record would reveal that in
obedience to such order, the Collector in Letter dated
03.01.1997 sponsored the names of the petitioner as
well as Smt. Manjulata Mohanty “eligible land loser’s
candidates for employment in Indian Oil Corporation
Limited subject to other prescribed conditions for the
job” (Annexure-4). The petitioner was called for interview
and he faced the interview on 27.09.1996 for the post of
“Junior Operator (Field)” and having secured 16 marks,
which is much below the qualifying marks, the Selection
Committee found him not suitable for the said post.
O.J.C. No.14605 of 1997 Page 47 of 102
Since the petitioner could not even secure qualifying
marks in the interview, there was no scope for imparting
training for the post, i.e., “Junior Operator (Field)”.
9.2. As the petitioner accepting the Order dated 09.09.1996
in O.J.C. No.2156 of 1995 participated in the interview
and after result being declared cannot turn round to
contend that such procedure was not contemplated in
the Office Memorandum dated 03.02.1986 issued by the
Ministry of Industry, Department of Public Enterprise as
adopted by the Government of India in Ministry of
Petroleum and Natural Gas.
9.3. Minute excursion of guiding factors enshrined in said
Office Memorandum would transpire that the
entitlement for undergoing “training to equip”, as
suggested by the petitioner, “to be considered for
employment in the project” is “subject to availability of
vacancies”. Nonetheless, the petitioner was found “not
suitable” for the post of “Junior Operator (Field)” in the
interview conducted by the Indian Oil Corporation
Limited as per direction of this Court vide Order dated
09.09.1996 in O.J.C. No.2156 of 1995.
10. In the present case at paragraph 6 of the writ petition
the petitioner has claimed to be “nominee of his
grandmother” in the year 1997 and described
grandmother as land loser; but in the rejoinder affidavit
O.J.C. No.14605 of 1997 Page 48 of 102
filed in the year 2024 he stated that the land was
recorded in the name of his grandfather. No clarification
has been appended in this regard by the petitioner.
10.1. Learned Senior Counsel placed reliance on a decision of
this Court rendered by a learned Single Judge in
Purusottam Padhiary Vrs. The Collector and District
Magistrate, Balasore, 124 (2017) CLT 23 = 2017 SCC
OnLine Ori 313
2. It has been held in the said case by a
learned Single Judge as follows:
“13. Undisputedly, the land measuring Ac.0.14 decimals
in plot.734 and Ac.0.13 decimals in plot no. 735 (in
total Ac.0.27 decimals) had been acquired by the
State Government under the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 for the purpose of establishing LPG Bottling
Plant of IOCL at Chhanpur, Balasore. The name of
the petitioner, being a land oustee, was
sponsored by opposite party No. 1, the Collector
and District Magistrate, Balasore, but could
not be given appointment though he was
selected by the authority by following due
procedure of selection. Even though father of the
petitioner received compensation for acquisition of
his land, but on the basis of the discussion held
between the authorities of the Government and the
IOCL that one of the family members of the land
oustee would get appointment at the Bottling Plant of
IOCL has not been followed. As such, the genuine
claim of the petitioner for compassionate
2
None of the counsel appearing for either party furnished the result in General
Manager, HR, Indian Oil Corporation Limited Vrs. Purusottam Padhiary, W.A.
No.165 of 2017 wherein the decision of Single Judge was under challenge.
O.J.C. No.14605 of 1997 Page 49 of 102
appointment has not been considered, but opposite
party No. 7 has been given appointment. Nothing
has been brought on record to show why the
petitioner was deprived of getting such appointment,
to which he is otherwise entitled to, at par with
counterpart land oustee for establishment of Bottling
Plant by IOCL.
17. Since the petitioner’s name was found place in
the select list of giving compassionate
appointment as a land loser and similarly
situated persons having been provided with
employment, the petitioner has been deprived
of, it clearly violates Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. In that view of the matter,
this Court is of the considered view that opposite
party no. 3 should reconsider the matter for giving
compassionate appointment to the petitioner as a
land oustee in view of recommendation made by the
District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Balasore and
Director, Employment, Orissa pursuant to which
selection was made and the petitioner's name found
place in the list prepared by the IOCL, in any
vacancy available befitting his qualification at par
with his counterparts as expeditiously as possible,
preferably within a period of three months from the
date of communication of this order.”
10.2. The fact scenario in the present case is different and
distinct. In the present case the Selection Committee in
pursuance of Order dated 09.09.1996 in O.J.C. No.2156
of 1995 filed at the behest of the instant petitioner in the
interview conducted found him “not suitable” for the
post of “Junior Operator (Field)”. Therefore, his name
O.J.C. No.14605 of 1997 Page 50 of 102
being not in the select list in contrast to the cited case
by the learned Senior Counsel referred to above, the
petitioner cannot claim parity with the case of
Purusottam Padhiary (supra).
10.3. The principle of application of precedents as propounded
in Union of India Vrs. Arulmozhi Iniarasu, (2011) 7 SCC
397 may be quoted:
“Before examining the first limb of the question,
formulated above, it would be instructive to note, as a
preface, the well-settled principle of law in the matter of
applying precedents that the Court should not place
reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the
fact situation of the case before it fits in with the fact
situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. The
observations of the courts are neither to be read as
Euclid’s theorems nor as provisions of statute and that too
taken out of their context. These observations must be
read in the context in which they appear to have been
stated. Disposal of cases by blindly placing reliance on a
decision is not proper because one additional or different
fact may make a world of difference between conclusions
in two cases.”
10.4. It is well settled that if some persons derived benefit by
illegality and had escaped from the clutches of law,
similar persons cannot plead, nor the Court can
countenance that benefit had from infraction of law.
Wrong decision, if at all, in favour of any employee
appointed under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme
does not entitle the petitioner herein to claim the benefit
O.J.C. No.14605 of 1997 Page 51 of 102
on the basis of such wrong decision. In Ekta Shakti
Foundation Vrs. Government of NCT of Delhi, (2006) 10
SCC 337, it has been held that:
“12. It was submitted that in some other cases, a
departure has been made. No definite material has
been placed in that regard. In any event,
‘Article 14 has no application or justification to
legitimise an illegal and illegitimate action. Article 14
proceeds on the premise that a citizen has legal and
valid right enforceable at law and persons having
similar right and persons similarly circumstanced,
cannot be denied of the benefit thereof. Such person
cannot be discriminated to deny the [similar] benefit.
The rational relationship and legal back-up are the
foundations to invoke the doctrine of equality in case
of persons similarly situated. If some persons
derived benefit by illegality and had escaped from
the clutches of law, similar persons cannot plead,
nor the court can countenance that benefit had from
infraction of law and must be allowed to be retained.
Can one illegality be compounded by permitting
similar illegal or illegitimate or ultra vires acts?
Answer is obviously no.’ [Secy., Jaipur Development
Authority Vrs. Daulat Mal Jain, (1997) 1 SCC 35, p.
50, para 24.]
13. In Coromandel Fertilizers Ltd. Vrs. Union of India,
1984 Supp SCC 457 it was held in para 13 that
wrong decision in favour of any party does not
entitle any other party to claim the benefit on the
basis of the wrong decision. In that case, one of the
items was excluded from the schedule, by wrong
decision, from its purview. It was contended that the
O.J.C. No.14605 of 1997 Page 52 of 102
authorities could not deny benefit to the appellant,
since he stood on the same footing with excluded
company. Article 14, therefore, was pressed into
service. This Court had held that even if the
grievance of the appellant was well founded, it did
not entitle the appellant to claim the benefit of the
notification. A wrong decision in favour of any
particular party does not entitle another party to
claim the benefit on the basis of the wrong decision.
Therefore, the claim for exemption on the anvil of
Article 14 was rejected.
14. ‘If the order in favour of the other person is found to
be contrary to law or not warranted in the facts and
circumstances of his case, it is obvious that such
illegal or unwarranted order [could not] be made the
basis of issuing a writ compelling the respondent
authority to repeat the illegality [to cause] another
unwarranted order. The extraordinary and
discretionary power of the High Court [under Article
226] cannot be exercised for such a purpose. ’
[Chandigarh Admn. Vrs. Jagjit Singh, (1995) 1 SCC
745, p. 750, para 8.] (emphasis in original) (See
Secy., Jaipur Development Authority Vrs. Daulat Mal
Jain, (1997) 1 SCC 35, p. 50, para 24.], SCC p. 51,
para 27.)
15. ‘30. The concept of equality as envisaged under
Article 14 of the Constitution is a positive concept
which cannot be enforced in a negative manner.
When any authority is shown to have committed any
illegality or irregularity in favour of any individual or
group of individuals, others cannot claim the same
illegality or irregularity on the ground of denial
thereof to them. Similarly wrong judgment passed in
O.J.C. No.14605 of 1997 Page 53 of 102
favour of one individual does not entitle others to
claim similar benefits. In this regard this Court in
Gursharan Singh Vrs. New Delhi Municipal
Committee, (1996) 2 SCC 459 held that citizens have
assumed wrong notions regarding the scope of
Article 14 of the Constitution which guarantees
equality before law to all citizens. Benefits extended
to some persons in an irregular or illegal manner
cannot be claimed by a citizen on the plea of equality
as enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution by way
of writ petition filed in the High Court. The Court
observed: (SCC p. 465, para 9)
‘Neither Article 14 of the Constitution conceives
within the equality clause this concept nor Article
226 empowers the High Court to enforce such claim
of equality before law. If such claims are enforced, it
shall amount to directing to continue and perpetuate
an illegal procedure or an illegal order for extending
similar benefits to others. Before a claim based on
equality clause is upheld, it must be established by
the petitioner that his claim being just and legal, has
been denied to him, while it has been extended to
others and in this process there has been a
discrimination.’
Again in Secy., Jaipur Development Authority Vrs.
Daulat Mal Jain, (1997) 1 SCC 35, p. 50, para 24,
this Court considered the scope of Article 14 of the
Constitution and reiterated its earlier position
regarding the concept of equality holding:
‘Suffice it to hold that the illegal allotment founded
upon ultra vires and illegal policy of allotment made
to some other persons wrongly, would not form a
legal premise to ensure it to the respondent or to
O.J.C. No.14605 of 1997 Page 54 of 102
repeat or perpetuate such illegal order, nor could it
be legalised. In other words, judicial process cannot
be abused to perpetuate the illegalities. Thus
considered, we hold that the High Court was clearly
in error in directing the appellants to allot the land to
the respondents.’
31. In State of Haryana Vrs. Ram Kumar Mann, (1997) 3
SCC 321 this Court observed:
‘The doctrine of discrimination is founded upon
existence of an enforceable right. He was
discriminated and denied equality as some similarly
situated persons had been given the same relief.
Article 14 would apply only when invidious
discrimination is meted out to equals and similarly
circumstanced without any rational basis or
relationship in that behalf. The respondent has no
right, whatsoever and cannot be given the relief
wrongly given to them i.e. benefit of withdrawal of
resignation. The High Court was wholly wrong in
reaching the conclusion that there was invidious
discrimination. If we cannot allow a wrong to
perpetrate, an employee, after committing
misappropriation of money, is dismissed from
service and subsequently that order is withdrawn
and he is reinstated into the service. Can a similarly
circumstanced person claim equality under Section
14 for reinstatement? The answer is obviously ‘No’.
In a converse case, in the first instance, one may be
wrong but the wrong order cannot be the foundation
for claiming equality for enforcement of the same
order. As stated earlier, his right must be founded
upon enforceable right to entitle him to the equality
treatment for enforcement thereof. A wrong decision
O.J.C. No.14605 of 1997 Page 55 of 102
by the Government does not give a right to enforce
the wrong order and claim parity or equality. Two
wrongs can never make a right.’ (See State of Bihar
Vrs. Kameshwar Prasad Singh, (2000) 9 SCC 94,
SCC pp. 111-13, paras 30-31.)”
10.5. As discernible distinction in factual position is perceived
between the cited case and the instant case, this Court
would wish to refer to a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India rendered in Union of India Vrs. Kartick
Chandra Mondal, (2010) 2 SCC 422. Sri Sailesh Chandra
Samantaray, learned Advocate for the opposite parties
sought to state that even assuming the CBI reported
irregularity in providing appointments to certain persons
who were not direct descendants, the same being subject
matter of consideration in the other case, being Trilochan
Das (supra); no parity can be drawn by the petitioner,
who was found to be “not suitable” for the post of
“Junior Operator (Field)”. Being conscious and with all
senses he participated in the interview pursuant to order
of this Court in earlier round of litigation set up by the
petitioner himself. This Court finds force in such
submission of the learned Counsel for the opposite
parties. Foundation of such factual observation in the
CBI Report is subject to confrontation with the
appointed persons and depends upon due process of
fact-finding. Report of CBI itself would not automatically
take away the rights already vested, unless with
O.J.C. No.14605 of 1997 Page 56 of 102
application of mind such contents of the CBI Report is
tested after being afforded opportunity to the affected
parties. The material collected behind the back of the
persons cannot be utilised to their prejudice as doing so
would lead to civil and/or evil consequences. It is also
true that mere filing of Report before this Court in
another’s case cannot ipso facto unseat the appointees.
However, this petitioner being not found suitable for the
said post for which he appeared in the interview
pursuant to the order of this Court in earlier round of
litigation no relief can be granted.
10.6. It is pertinent to have reference to following enunciation
of law contained in Union of India Vrs. Kartick Chandra
Mondal, (2010) 2 SCC 422:
“Even assuming that the similarly placed persons were
ordered to be absorbed, the same if done erroneously
cannot become the foundation for perpetuating further
illegality. If an appointment is made illegally or
irregularly, the same cannot be the basis of further
appointment. An erroneous decision cannot be permitted
to perpetuate further error to the detriment of the general
welfare of the public or a considerable section. This has
been the consistent approach of this Court. However, we
intend to refer to a latest decision of this Court on this
point in State of Bihar Vrs. Upendra Narayan Singh,
(2009) 5 SCC 65, the relevant portion of which is
extracted herein below:
‘67. By now it is settled that the guarantee of equality
before law enshrined in Article 14 is a positive
O.J.C. No.14605 of 1997 Page 57 of 102
concept and it cannot be enforced by a citizen or
court in a negative manner. If an illegality or
irregularity has been committed in favour of any
individual or a group of individuals or a wrong order
has been passed by a judicial forum, others cannot
invoke the jurisdiction of the higher or superior court
for repeating or multiplying the same irregularity or
illegality or for passing wrong order. ...’
A reference in this regard may also be made to the earlier
decisions of this Court. See also: (1) Faridabad CT Scan
Centre Vrs. D.G. Health Services, (1997) 7 SCC 752; (2)
South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Vrs. State of M.P., (2003) 8
SCC 648; and (3) Maharaj Krishan Bhatt Vrs. State of
J&K, (2008) 9 SCC 24].”
10.7. Strenuous arguments are advanced by the learned
counsel that after participation in the interview by
accepting the direction contained in the Order dated
09.09.1996 in its own case, being O.J.C. No.2156 of
1995, the petitioner cannot allege by way of rejoinder
affidavit that “there is no provision for conducting an
interview and awarding of any mark”. To counenance
such contention the relevant observation of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in Madan Lal Vrs. State of J&K,
(1995) 3 SCC 486 be referred to:
“9. Before dealing with this contention, we must keep in
view the salient fact that the petitioners as well as
the contesting successful candidates being
respondents concerned herein, were all found
eligible in the light of marks obtained in the written
test, to be eligible to be called for oral interview. Up
O.J.C. No.14605 of 1997 Page 58 of 102
to this stage there is no dispute between the parties.
The petitioners also appeared at the oral interview
conducted by the Members concerned of the
Commission who interviewed the petitioners as well
as the contesting respondents concerned. Thus the
petitioners took a chance to get themselves
selected at the said oral interview. Only
because they did not find themselves to have
emerged successful as a result of their
combined performance both at written test and
oral interview, they have filed this petition. It
is now well settled that if a candidate takes a
calculated chance and appears at the
interview, then, only because the result of the
interview is not palatable to him, he cannot
turn round and subsequently contend that the
process of interview was unfair or the Selection
Committee was not properly constituted. In the
case of Om Prakash Shukla Vrs. Akhilesh Kumar
Shukla, 1986 Supp SCC 285 = AIR 1986 SC 1043 it
has been clearly laid down by a Bench of three
learned Judges of this Court that when the
petitioner appeared at the examination
without protest and when he found that he
would not succeed in examination he filed a
petition challenging the said examination, the
High Court should not have granted any relief
to such a petitioner.”
10.8. Glance at Letter dated 18.09.1996 issued by the Indian
Oil Corporation Limited addressed to the petitioner
(Annexure-3) makes it abundantly manifest that the
petitioner was asked to appear before the Selection
Committee on 27.09.1996 for “test/personal interview”
O.J.C. No.14605 of 1997 Page 59 of 102
for the post of “Junior Operator (Field)” in case he fulfils
the following requisite eligibility norms:
“Qualification : SSC (Xth Std.)
Age : 40 years as on 30.04.1996
Experience : Minimum 2 years experience
as Khalasi”.
10.9. At paragraph 7 of the writ petition the petitioner
asserted to have requisite qualification and without any
demur appeared for the test/interview on 27.09.1996.
Against this a reply in form of counter affidavit by the
opposite party Nos.1 to 4 has come to be filed by
candidly stating that “the petitioner was issued with call
Letter dated 18.09.1996, the interview was conducted on
27.09.1996 by the Selection Committee duly constituted
by the competent authority as per the policy of the
Indian Oil Corporation and the petitioner was
unsuccessful, hence not selected”.
10.10. In view of legal position as enunciated by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India as culled out hitherto, it
can safely be held that after participating in the test/
interview without any objection along with others
including Manjulata Mohanty, the petitioner is estopped
from questioning that the interview should not have
been conducted as there was no provision provided to
conduct such test/interview under the Rehabilitation
Assistance Scheme, particularly when such interview
O.J.C. No.14605 of 1997 Page 60 of 102
was undertaken in compliance with the Order dated
09.09.1996 in O.J.C. No.2156 of 1995.
11. A feeble attempt was made by Sri Banshidhar Baug, the
learned Senior Counsel that the Collector, Balasore
sponsored the name of the petitioner as “eligible land
loser’s candidate for employment in Indian Oil
Corporation Limited” vide Letter dated 03.01.1997,
which confers right in the petitioner for the post of
Junior Operator (Field). The fallacy in such argument as
advanced by the petitioner can be couched in the fact
situation of the matter that the Interview Call Letter
dated 18.09.1996 issued by the Indian Oil Corporation
Limited constricted the participation with an option “If
you are fulfilling the above requirements, please call on
us at the above address on 27.09.96 at 10.00 a.m. for
test/personal interview. If you do not fulfil any of the
above norms, you will not be permitted to attend the
test/interview and you may ignore this call letter. ”
Despite such restrictive participation for the post of
Junior Operator (Field), the petitioner appeared and
could not achieve the qualifying marks. Even after
finding the petitioner not suitable for the said post there
was little scope for the petitioner to contend that to
equip him, the Indian Oil Corporation Limited ought to
have imparted training as per Clause 4 of the Office
Memorandum dated 03.02.1986.
O.J.C. No.14605 of 1997 Page 61 of 102
11.1. In this regard it is apt to say that it is the Selection
Committee who is the competent authority to test
whether a person is fit enough for a particular job
description and the person to be employed does satisfy
the requirement of the employer.
11.2. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Roshan
Kumar Baral Vrs. State of Odisha, W.P.(C) No.1365 of
2022 vide Judgment dated 30.10.2024 enunciated
unambiguously following proposition:
“16. In our considered view, the Supreme Court ’s
decision in case of Chief Manager, Punjab National
Bank Vrs. Anit Kumar Das, (2020) 9 SCR 925 does
not help the petitioners’ case wherein it has been
held in no uncertain terms that it is for the employer
to determine and decide the relevancy and
suitability of the qualifications for any post and it is
not for the Courts to consider and assess. Adding,
the Supreme Court held in case of Anit Kumar Das
(supra) in paragraph 17.3 (7.3 of SCR) as under:
‘17.3. xxx. A greater latitude is permitted by the
courts for the employer to prescribe
qualifications for any post. There is a rationale
behind it. Qualifications are prescribed keeping
in view the need and interest of an institution
or an industry or an establishment as the case
may be. The courts are not fit instruments to
assess expediency or advisability or utility of
such prescription of qualifications. However, at
the same time, the employer cannot act
arbitrarily or fancifully in prescribing
O.J.C. No.14605 of 1997 Page 62 of 102
qualifications for posts. In the present case,
prescribing the eligibility criteria/educational
qualification that a graduate candidate shall
not be eligible and the candidate must have
passed 12th standard is justified and as
observed hereinabove, it is a conscious
decision taken by the Bank which is in force
since 2008. Therefore, the High Court has
clearly erred in directing the appellant Bank to
allow the respondent-original writ petitioner to
discharge his duties as a Peon, though he as
such was not eligible as per the eligibility
criteria/educational qualification mentioned in
the advertisement.’
17. It is noteworthy that in case of Anit Kumar Das
(supra), for appointment of peon in Punjab National
Bank minimum qualification of 12th Class pass or
its equivalent with basic reading/writing knowledge
of English was prescribed. The advertisement
further prescribed that a candidate should not be a
graduate as on 01.01.2016. Suppressing the fact
that the respondent in that case was a graduate, he
had obtained appointment. Accordingly, though he
was declared successful, later his candidature was
cancelled and was not allowed to join the Bank. He
filed a writ application before this Court, which was
allowed by a learned Single Judge of this Court with
a direction to allow the respondent to discharge his
duties as a peon. A writ appeal was preferred
against the decision of the learned Single Judge,
which was dismissed. On a challenge made to the
said orders of the learned Single Judge and Division
Bench of this Court, the Supreme Court made the
observations in Anit Kumar Das (supra) as noted
O.J.C. No.14605 of 1997 Page 63 of 102
above and set aside the decisions of this Court in the
writ proceeding and the writ appeal.
***
19. Further, the Supreme Court in case of Anit Kumar
Das (supra) has referred to, with approval, the case
of Zahoor Ahmad Rather Vrs. Imtiyaz Ahmad, (2018)
14 SCR 1082. The decision in case of Jyoti K.K. Vrs.
Kerala Public Service Commission, (2010) 15 SCC
596 relied on by the petitioners is clearly
distinguishable. The decision in case of Jyoti K.K.
(supra) arose from a case where the Kerala Public
Service Commission had invited applications to the
post of Sub-Engineers (Electrical) in Kerala State
Electricity Board. ***
20. It was in that background that the Supreme Court
had held in case of Jyoti K. K. (supra) in paragraphs
7 and 8 as under:
‘7. It is no doubt true, as stated by the High Court
that when a qualification has been set out
under the relevant Rules, the same cannot be
in any manner whittled down and a different
qualification cannot be adopted. The High
Court is also justified in stating that the higher
qualification must clearly indicate or
presuppose the acquisition of the lower
qualification prescribed for that post in order to
attract that part of the Rule to the effect that
such of those higher qualifications which
presuppose the acquisition of the lower
qualifications prescribed for the post shall also
be sufficient for the post. If a person has
acquired higher qualifications in the same
O.J.C. No.14605 of 1997 Page 64 of 102
Faculty, such qualifications can certainly be
stated to presuppose the acquisition of the
lower qualifications prescribed for the post. In
this case it may not be necessary to seek far.
8. Under the relevant Rules, for the post of
Assistant Engineer, degree in Electrical
Engineering of Kerala University or other
equivalent qualification recognised or
equivalent thereto has been prescribed. For a
higher post when a direct recruitment has to be
held, the qualification that has to be obtained,
obviously gives an indication that such
qualification is definitely higher qualification
than what is prescribed for the lower post,
namely, the post of Sub-Engineer. In that view
of the matter the qualification of degree in
Electrical Engineering presupposes the
acquisition of the lower qualification of diploma
in that subject prescribed for the post, shall be
considered to be sufficient for that post.’
21. The decision in case of Jyoti K. K. (supra) came to be
considered subsequently by the Supreme Court in
case of State of Punjab Vrs. Anita reported in (2015)
2 SCC 170. In that case, the applications were
invited for JBT/ETT qualified teachers. Under the
rules, the prescribed qualification for a JBT teacher
included a Matric with a two years‟ course in JBT
training and knowledge of Punjabi and Hindi of the
Matriculation standard or its equivalent. In case of
Anita (supra), the Supreme Court held that none of
the respondents of the case possessed the
prescribed qualification and an MA, MSc or MCom
could not be treated as a “higher qualification”.
O.J.C. No.14605 of 1997 Page 65 of 102
Distinguishing the case of Jyoti K. K. (supra), in case
of Anita (supra), the Supreme Court held in
paragraph 15 as under:
‘15. It was sought to be asserted on the basis of the
aforesaid observations, that since the private
respondents possess higher qualifications, then
the qualification of JBT/ETT, they should be
treated as having fulfilled the qualification
stipulated for the posts of JBT/ETT Teachers. It
is not possible for us to accept the aforesaid
submission of the learned counsel for the
private respondents, because the statutory
rules which were taken into consideration by
this Court while recording the aforesaid
observations in Jyoti K.K. Vrs. Kerala Public
Service Commission, (2010) 15 SCC 596,
permitted the aforesaid course. The statutory
rule, in the decision relied on by the learned
counsel for the private respondents, is
extracted hereunder: (SCC p. 598, para 6)
‘6. Rule 10(a)(ii) reads as follows:
‘10. (a)(ii) Notwithstanding anything
contained in these Rules or in
the Special Rules, the
qualifications recognised by
executive orders or Standing
Orders of Government as
equivalent to a qualification
specified for a post in the
Special Rules and [Ed.: The
matter between two asterisks
has been emphasised in
original as well.]’
O.J.C. No.14605 of 1997 Page 66 of 102
A perusal of the Rule clearly reveals that the
possession of higher qualification would
presuppose the acquisition of the lower
qualification prescribed for the posts. Insofar
as the present controversy is concerned, there
is no similar statutory provision authorising the
appointment of persons with higher
qualifications.’
22. In case of Zahoor Ahmad Rather (supra), the
Supreme Court noticing the decisions rendered in
Jyoti K.K. (supra) and Anita (supra), held in
paragraph 26 as under:
‘26. We are in respectful agreement with the
interpretation which has been placed on the
judgment in Jyoti K.K. Vrs. Kerala Public
Service Commission, (2010) 15 SCC 596 in the
subsequent decision in State of Punjab Vrs.
Anita, (2015) 2 SCC 170. The decision in Jyoti
K.K. Vrs. Kerala Public Service Commission,
(2010) 15 SCC 596 turned on the provisions of
Rule 10(a)(ii). Absent such a rule, it would not
be permissible to draw an inference that a
higher qualification necessarily presupposes
the acquisition of another, albeit lower,
qualification. The prescription of qualifications
for a post is a matter of recruitment policy. The
State as the employer is entitled to prescribe
the qualifications as a condition of eligibility. It
is no part of the role or function of judicial
review to expand upon the ambit of the
prescribed qualifications. Similarly, equivalence
of a qualification is not a matter which can be
determined in exercise of the power of judicial
O.J.C. No.14605 of 1997 Page 67 of 102
review. Whether a particular qualification
should or should not be regarded as equivalent
is a matter for the State, as the recruiting
authority, to determine. The decision in Jyoti
K.K. Vrs. Kerala Public Service Commission,
(2010) 15 SCC 596 turned on a specific
statutory rule under which the holding of a
higher qualification could presuppose the
acquisition of a lower qualification. The
absence of such a rule in the present case
makes a crucial difference to the ultimate
outcome. In this view of the matter, the Division
Bench [Imtiyaz Ahmad Vrs. Zahoor Ahmad
Rather, LPA (SW) No. 135 of 2017, decided on
12-10-2017 (J&K)] of the High Court was
justified in reversing the judgment [Zahoor
Ahmad Rather Vrs. State of J&K, 2017 SCC
OnLine J&K 936] of the learned Single Judge
and in coming to the conclusion that the
appellants did not meet the prescribed
qualifications. We find no error in the decision
[Imtiyaz Ahmad Vrs. Zahoor Ahmad Rather,
LPA (SW) No. 135 of 2017, decided on 12-10-
2017 (J&K)] of the Division Bench.’
23. Reiterating the power of the State as an employer in
prescribing qualifications for the post, the Supreme
Court in case of Zahoor Ahmad Rather (supra) held
in paragraph 27 as under:
‘27. While prescribing the qualifications for a post,
the State, as employer, may legitimately bear
in mind several features including the nature of
the job, the aptitudes requisite for the efficient
discharge of duties, the functionality of a
O.J.C. No.14605 of 1997 Page 68 of 102
qualification and the content of the course of
studies which leads up to the acquisition of a
qualification. The State is entrusted with the
authority to assess the needs of its public
services. Exigencies of administration, it is trite
law, fall within the domain of administrative
decision-making. The State as a public
employer may well take into account social
perspectives that require the creation of job
opportunities across the societal structure. All
these are essentially matters of policy. Judicial
review must tread warily. That is why the
decision in Jyoti K.K. Vrs. Kerala Public Service
Commission, (2010) 15 SCC 596 must be
understood in the context of a specific statutory
rule under which the holding of a higher
qualification which presupposes the acquisition
of a lower qualification was considered to be
sufficient for the post. It was in the context of
specific rule that the decision in Jyoti K.K. Vrs.
Kerala Public Service Commission, (2010) 15
SCC 596 turned.’
24. In view of the law discussed by the Supreme Court
in the aforesaid decisions, it can be easily deduced
as under:
i. The State, as an employer, while prescribing
qualifications for a post may legitimately bear
in mind several features including—
(a) the nature of the job,
(b) the aptitudes requisite for the efficient
discharge of duties,
O.J.C. No.14605 of 1997 Page 69 of 102
(c) the functionality of a qualification and (d)
the content of the course of studies which
leads up to the acquisition of a
qualification;
ii. Further, the State is entrusted with the
authority to assess the needs of its public
services;
iii. The exigencies of administration fall within the
domain of administrative decision-making. The
Stale as a public employer may well take into
account social perspectives that require the
creation of job opportunities across the societal
structure;
iv. A greater latitude is permitted by the Courts for
the employer to prescribe qualifications for any
post as the qualifications are prescribed
keeping in view the need and interest of an
institution or an industry or an establishment
as the case may be;
v. The Courts are not fit instruments to assess
expediency or advisability or utility of such
prescription of qualifications.”
11.3. At this juncture this Court may take note of the
observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
the case of Abhay Kumar Patel Vrs. State of Bihar, (2026)
2 SCR 62:
“31. The Constitution Bench of this Court in Tej Prakash
Vrs. Rajasthan High Court, (2024) 12 SCR 28 gave a
nod of approval to the principles as laid down in K.
Manjusree Vrs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2008) 2
O.J.C. No.14605 of 1997 Page 70 of 102
SCR 1025 = (2008) 3 SCC 512 and held that even if
the relevant rules permit the competent authority to
set benchmarks at different stages of a recruitment
process, the same must be done at any time before
the relevant stage is reached.
‘52. Thus, in our view, the appointing authority/
recruiting authority/competent authority, in
absence of rules to the contrary, can devise a
procedure for selection of a candidate suitable
to the post and while doing so it may also set
benchmarks for different stages of the
recruitment process including written
examination and interview. However, if any
such benchmark is set, the same should be
stipulated before the commencement of the
recruitment process. But if the extant Rules or
the advertisement inviting applications
empower the competent authority to set
benchmarks at different stages of the
recruitment process, then such benchmarks
may be set any time before that stage is
reached so that neither the candidate nor the
evaluator/examiner/interviewer is taken by
surprise.
53. The decision in K. Manjusree Vrs. State of A.P.,
(2008) 3 SCC 512 does not proscribe setting of
benchmarks for various stages of the
recruitment process but mandates that it
should not be set after the stage is over, in
other words after the game has already been
played. This view is in consonance with the
rule against arbitrariness enshrined in Article
14 of the Constitution and meets the legitimate
O.J.C. No.14605 of 1997 Page 71 of 102
expectation of the candidates as also the
requirement of transparency in recruitment to
public services and thereby obviates
malpractices in preparation of select list.’
32. The Constitution Bench in Tej Prakash Pathak
(Supra) concluded and answered the reference as
follows:
‘Conclusions
65. We, therefore, answer the reference in the
following terms:
65.1. Recruitment process commences from the
issuance of the advertisement calling for
applications and ends with filling up of
vacancies;
65.2. Eligibility criteria for being placed in the select
list, notified at the commencement of the
recruitment process, cannot be changed
midway through the recruitment process unless
the extant Rules so permit, or the
advertisement, which is not contrary to the
extant Rules, so permit. Even if such change is
permissible under the extant Rules or the
advertisement, the change would have to meet
the requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution
and satisfy the test of non-arbitrariness;
65.3. The decision in K. Manjusree Vrs. State of A.P.,
(2008) 3 SCC 512 lays down good law and is
not in conflict with the decision in State of
Haryana Vrs. Subash Chander Marwaha,
(1974) 3 SCC 220. State of Haryana Vrs.
Subash Chander Marwaha, (1974) 3 SCC 220
O.J.C. No.14605 of 1997 Page 72 of 102
deals with the right to be appointed from the
select list whereas K. Manjusree Vrs. State of
A.P., (2008) 3 SCC 512 deals with the right to
be placed in the select list. The two cases
therefore deal with altogether different issues;
65.4. Recruiting bodies, subject to the extant Rules,
may devise appropriate procedure for bringing
the recruitment process to its logical end
provided the procedure so adopted is
transparent, non-discriminatory/non-arbitrary
and has a rational nexus to the object sought to
be achieved;
65.5. Extant Rules having statutory force are binding
on the recruiting body both in terms of
procedure and eligibility. However, where the
rules are non-existent, or silent, administrative
instructions may fill in the gaps;
65.6. Placement in the select list gives no
indefeasible right to appointment. The State or
its instrumentality for bona fide reasons may
choose not to fill up the vacancies. However, if
vacancies exist, the State or its instrumentality
cannot arbitrarily deny appointment to a
person within the zone of consideration in the
select list.’ ***”
11.4. In the present matter it is not the case of the petitioner
that the rules of the game were changed after the game
had begun. Perusal of the Interview Call Letter dated
18.09.1996 of the Indian Oil Corporation Limited
manifests the eligibility criteria for the post with caution
that if the petitioner satisfies the same he would offer his
O.J.C. No.14605 of 1997 Page 73 of 102
candidature for the post of the Junior Operator (Field).
The letter of the Collector also spelt out that “subject to
other prescribed conditions for the job”. In the interview
qualifying marks were fixed by the employer as a
requirement for the job description. Being conscious and
cautious, the petitioner appeared in the interview/ test
conducted during 25-26-27.09.1996 without any demur.
After the result being made known to him, he filed this
writ petition.
11.5. Sri Sailesh Chandra Samantaray, learned Counsel
representing the Indian Oil Corporation Limited sought
to rely on Shankarsan Dash Vrs. Union of India, (1991) 3
SCC 47 to support his submission that no indefeasible
right is accrued merely on the basis of the letter of the
Collector, Balasore. In the said reported judgment, the
following observations are made:
“7. It is not correct to say that if a number of vacancies
are notified for appointment and adequate number of
candidates are found fit, the successful candidates
acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed which
cannot be legitimately denied. Ordinarily the
notification merely amounts to an invitation to
qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and on
their selection they do not acquire any right to the
post. Unless the relevant recruitment rules so
indicate, the State is under no legal duty to fill up all
or any of the vacancies. However, it does not mean
that the State has the licence of acting in an
arbitrary manner. The decision not to fill up the
O.J.C. No.14605 of 1997 Page 74 of 102
vacancies has to be taken bona fide for appropriate
reasons. And if the vacancies or any of them are
filled up, the State is bound to respect the
comparative merit of the candidates, as reflected at
the recruitment test, and no discrimination can be
permitted. This correct position has been
consistently followed by this Court, and we do not
find any discordant note in the decisions in State of
Haryana Vrs. Subash Chander Marwaha, (1974) 3
SCC 220 = (1974) 1 SCR 165, Neelima Shangla Vrs.
State of Haryana, (1986) 4 SCC 268, or Jatinder
Kumar Vrs. State of Punjab, (1985) 1 SCC 122 =
(1985) 1 SCR 899.
8. In State of Haryana Vrs. Subash Chander Marwaha,
(1974) 3 SCC 220 = (1974) 1 SCR 165, 15 vacancies
of Subordinate Judges were advertised, and out of
the selection list only 7, who had secured more than
55 per cent marks, were appointed, although under
the relevant rules the eligibility condition required
only 45 per cent marks. Since the High Court had
recommended earlier, to the Punjab Government that
only the candidates securing 55 per cent marks or
more should be appointed as Subordinate Judges,
the other candidates included in the select list were
not appointed. They filed a writ petition before the
High Court claiming a right of being appointed on the
ground that vacancies existed and they were
qualified and were found suitable. The writ
application was allowed. While reversing the
decision of the High Court, it was observed by this
Court that it was open to the government to decide
how many appointments should be made and
although the High Court had appreciated the
position correctly, it had “somehow persuaded itself
O.J.C. No.14605 of 1997 Page 75 of 102
to spell out a right in the candidates because in fact
there were 15 vacancies”. It was expressly ruled
that the existence of vacancies does not give a legal
right to a selected candidate. Similarly, the claim of
some of the candidates selected for appointment,
who were petitioners in Jatinder Kumar Vrs. State of
Punjab, (1985) 1 SCC 122 = (1985) 1 SCR 899, was
turned down holding that it was open to the
government to decide how many appointments
would be made. The plea of arbitrariness was
rejected in view of the facts of the case and it was
held that the candidates did not acquire any right
merely by applying for selection or even after
selection. It is true that the claim of the petitioner in
the case of Neelima Shangla Vrs. State of Haryana,
(1986) 4 SCC 268, was allowed by this Court but,
not on the ground that she had acquired any right
by her selection and existence of vacancies. The fact
was that the matter had been referred to the Public
Service Commission which sent to the government
only the names of 17 candidates belonging to the
general category on the assumption that only 17
posts were to be filled up. The government
accordingly made only 17 appointments and stated
before the court that they were unable to select and
appoint more candidates as the Commission had not
recommended any other candidate. In this
background it was observed that it is, of course,
open to the government not to fill up all the
vacancies for a valid reason, but the selection cannot
be arbitrarily restricted to a few candidates
notwithstanding the number of vacancies and the
availability of qualified candidates; and, there must
be a conscious application of mind by the
government and the High Court before the number of
O.J.C. No.14605 of 1997 Page 76 of 102
persons selected for appointment is restricted. The
fact that it was not for the Public Service
Commission to take a decision in this regard was
emphasised in this judgment. None of these
decisions, therefore, supports the appellant.”
11.6. In State of Assam Vrs. Arabinda Rabha, (2025) 7 SCC
705 it has been laid down that:
“59. We are conscious of the line of decisions of this
Court and have noted some of them here, which lay
down the law that mere empanelment/enlistment
does not result in accrual of any indefeasible right in
favour of such empanelled/selected candidate as
well as the law that the employer may, in its
wisdom, either decide to cancel the select list or not
carry on the process further resulting in the
notified/advertised vacancy/vacancies not being
filled up pursuant to the selection process, which
has been conducted. What it means is that an
empanelled/selected candidate can claim no right of
appointment, if the State has cogent and germane
grounds for not making the appointment. However,
at the same time, it is also the law that the
appointing authority cannot ignore the select panel
or decline to make the appointment on its whims.
Shankarsan Dash Vrs. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC
47 cautions that the State has no licence to act in an
arbitrary manner. In R.S. Mittal Vrs. Union of India,
1995 Supp (2) SCC 230, a coordinate Bench held
that when a person has been selected by the
Selection Board and there is a vacancy which can be
offered to him, keeping in view his merit position,
then, ordinarily, there is no justification to ignore him
for appointment and that there has to be a justifiable
O.J.C. No.14605 of 1997 Page 77 of 102
reason to decline to appoint a person who is on the
select panel. The position in law finds reiteration in a
decision of recent origin in Dinesh Kumar Kashyap
Vrs. South East Central Railway, (2019) 12 SCC
798, where the majority held that the employer must
give cogent reasons for not appointing selected
candidates.
60. Any decision taken not to appoint despite there
being vacancies and a valid select list, obviously, is
in the nature of a policy decision. It has to be borne
in mind that securing public employment is the
dream of many, who put their heart and soul to
prepare for it. Nowadays, aspirants undertake
rigorous study sessions as well as training modules
to equip themselves, which also comes at a heavy
cost. That apart, since every process of recruitment
necessarily involves substantial expenses which are
borne from the public exchequer and at the same
time the aspirants for the posts (who, as per their
own estimation, have performed sufficiently well
and therefore stand a good chance of being
appointed upon figuring in the select list) cherish
fond hopes of a bright and secure future, the law is
clear that the policy decision not to carry the process
forward must be taken bona fide, there has to be
justifiable reason if the process is abandoned
midway, and such decision must not suffer from the
vice of arbitrariness or the whims of the decision
maker. This acts as a check on the employer's power
deciding against not making any appointment from
the select list despite availability of vacancy/
vacancies on the advertised/notified public post(s).
A writ court may, upon reaching the requisite
satisfaction, intervene in such manner and make
O.J.C. No.14605 of 1997 Page 78 of 102
such directions as the facts and circumstances
warrant. We, therefore, do not find it acceptable that
the aspirants, not having an indefeasible or vested
right of appointment, do not also have the right to
question any decision adverse to their interest
affecting achievement of their goals to secure public
employment. Whether, and to what extent, any relief
should be granted, must depend on the facts of each
case.”
11.7. A case to the point, being Mana Gobinda Subudhi Vrs.
Union of India, W.P.(C) No.547 of 2019, disposed of vide
Order dated 22.03.2023, has been cited to demonstrate
that by virtue of Order dated 09.09.1996 of this Court in
O.J.C. No.2156 of 1995 since the petitioner has
participated in the interview and after being declared
unsuccessful in such test, by way of filing subsequent
writ petition he could not question the desirability of
conducting the interview to insist for exercising power of
judicial review under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India. In the said case (Mana Gobinda
Subudhi, supra) it has been stated as follows:
“6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
after going through the record, it appears that the
petitioner is a land oustee and for acquisition of his
land, he has been paid the compensation amount
and there is no dispute with regard to the same. But
only question revolves around in this case is
that whether one of the family member of the
petitioner, is entitled to get appointment or
not. It is the specific case of the opposite parties that
O.J.C. No.14605 of 1997 Page 79 of 102
in absence of any scheme or any guideline in regard
to give employment to the land oustee, the benefit
cannot be admissible to the petitioner. But fact
remains, the petitioner had earlier approached this
Court by filing OJC No. 3928 of 1997, which was
disposed vide order dated 30.11.2000 with the
following direction:
‘In the event the name of any of the family members
of the petitioner is sponsored by the employment
exchange, the Indian Oil Corporation shall consider
such case and employ one of the family members of
the petitioner, if found suitable for such
appointment.’
7. It is also made clear that in spite of the above order
passed by this Court, neither the petitioner nor any
of his family member registered his/her name in the
employment exchange. Therefore, sponsor of the
name of one of the family member of petitioner by
the employment exchange did not arise. Apart from
the same, even though an advertisement was issued
by the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., neither the
petitioner nor his family members applied for.
Rather, the petitioner approached this Court again
by filing W.P.(C) No. 3099 of 2007, which was
disposed of vide order dated 19.03.2014 with the
following observation and direction:
‘No case has been made out for interference. The
land of the petitioner was acquired in the year 1994
and compensation was paid for the same. No
provision has been brought to our notice which may
entitle the petitioner to give employment to his son
on preferential basis. If any vacancy is advertised,
son of the petitioner is at liberty to offer his
O.J.C. No.14605 of 1997 Page 80 of 102
candidature for the said vacancy as observed by
this Court earlier. In these circumstances, a writ of
mandamus cannot be issued.’
8. In view of the order passed in W.P.(C) No. 3099 of
2007, whatever right had been accrued in favour of
the petitioner, pursuant to the order dated
30.11.2000 passed by the learned Single Judge in
OJC No. 3928 of 1997, has been merged with the
said order. Thereby, the question of extending the
benefit of appointment has been ceased by virtue of
the order passed by the Division Bench.”
11.8. Under the above backdrop, it is held that once the
petitioner in obedience to Order dated 09.09.1996
passed in O.J.C. No.2156 of 1995 appeared in the
interview for the post of “Junior Operator (Field)” without
any objection or protest, and offered his candidature to
be considered along with others, particularly Smt.
Manjulata Mohanty, after being declared “not suitable”
for the said post he cannot be heard to say that
interview/test was not contemplated or warranted in
terms of the Office Memorandum dated 03.02.1986
issued by the Ministry of Industry, Department of Public
Enterprises as adopted in the Letter dated 21.02.1986 of
the Government of India in Ministry of Petroleum and
Natural Gas. The Order dated 09.09.1996 passed in
O.J.C. No.2156 of 1995 has been carried out by not only
the Collector, Balasore, but also the Indian Oil
Corporation Limited as also the Employment Exchange.
O.J.C. No.14605 of 1997 Page 81 of 102
11.9. Participation and acquiescence would not entail the
participant to question the selection process. It is fruitful
to have regard to the following observations made in
Tajvir Singh Sodhi Vrs. State of Jammu and Kashmir,
(2023) 3 SCR 714:
“13. The next aspect of the matter which requires
consideration is the contention of the writ petitioners
to the effect that the entire selection process was
vitiated as the eligibility criteria enshrined in the
Advertisement Notice dated 5th May, 2008 was
recast vide a corrigendum dated 12th June, 2009,
without any justifiable reason. In order to consider
this contention, regard may be had to the following
case law:
i) In Manish Kumar Shahi Vrs. State of Bihar,
(2010) 12 SCC 576, this Court authoritatively
declared that having participated in a selection
process without any protest, it would not be
open to an unsuccessful candidate to challenge
the selection criteria subsequently.
ii) In Ramesh Chandra Shah vs. Anil Joshi, (2013)
11 SCC 309, an advertisement was issued
inviting applications for appointment for the
post of physiotherapist. Candidates who failed
to clear the written test presented a writ
petition and prayed for quashing the
advertisement and the process of selection.
They pleaded that the advertisement and the
test were ultra vires the provisions of the Uttar
Pradesh Medical Health and Family Welfare
Department Physiotherapist and Occupational
O.J.C. No.14605 of 1997 Page 82 of 102
Therapist Service Rules, 1998. After referring to
a catena of judgments on the principle of
waiver and estoppel, this Court did not
entertain the challenge for the reason that the
same would not be maintainable after
participation in the selection process. The
pertinent observations of this Court are as
under:
‘24. In view of the propositions laid down in
the above noted judgments, it must be
held that by having taken part in the
process of selection with full knowledge
that the recruitment was being made
under the General Rules, the respondents
had waived their right to question the
advertisement or the methodology
adopted by the Board for making
selection and the learned Single Judge
and the Division Bench of the High Court
committed grave error by entertaining the
grievance made by the respondents.’
iii) Similarly, in Ashok Kumar Vrs. State of Bihar,
(2017) 4 SCC 357, a process was initiated for
promotion to Class-III posts from amongst
Class-IV employees of a civil court. In the said
case, the selection was to be made on the basis
of a written test and interview, for which 85%
and 15% marks were earmarked respectively
as per norms. Out of 27 (twenty-seven)
candidates who appeared in the written
examination, 14 (fourteen) qualified. They were
interviewed. The committee selected
candidates on the basis of merit and prepared
O.J.C. No.14605 of 1997 Page 83 of 102
a list. The High Court declined to approve the
Select List on the ground that the ratio of full
marks for the written examination and the
interview ought to have been 90:10 and 45
ought to be the qualifying marks in the written
examination. A fresh process followed
comprising of a written examination (full
marks– 90 and qualifying marks– 45) and an
interview (carrying 10 marks). On the basis of
the performance of the candidates, results
were declared and 6 (six) persons were
appointed on Class-III posts. It was thereafter
that the appellants along with 4 (four) other
unsuccessful candidates filed a writ petition
before the High Court challenging the order of
the High Court on the administrative side
declining to approve the initial Select List. The
primary ground was that the appointment
process was vitiated, since under the relevant
rules, the written test was required to carry 85
marks and the interview 15 marks. This Court
dismissed the appeals on the grounds that the
appellants were clearly put on notice when the
fresh selection process took place that the
written examination would carry 90 marks and
the interview 10 marks. The Court was of the
view that the appellants having participated in
the selection process without objection and
subsequently found to be not successful, a
challenge to the process at their instance was
precluded. The relevant observations are as
under:
‘13. The law on the subject has been
crystalized in several decisions of this
O.J.C. No.14605 of 1997 Page 84 of 102
Court. In Chandra Prakash Tiwari Vrs.
Shakuntala Shukla, this Court laid down
the principle that when a candidate
appears at an examination without
objection and is subsequently found to be
not successful, a challenge to the process
is precluded. The question of entertaining
a petition challenging an examination
would not arise where a candidate has
appeared and participated. He or she
cannot subsequently turn around and
contend that the process was unfair or
that there was a lacuna therein, merely
because the result is not palatable. In
Union of India Vrs. S. Vinodh Kumar
(2007) 8 SCC 100, this Court held that:
‘18. It is also well settled that those
candidates who had taken part in
the selection process knowing fully
well the procedure laid down therein
were not entitled to question the
same (See also Munindra Kumar
Vrs. Rajiv Govil, (1991) 3 SCC 368
and Rashmi Mishra Vrs. M.P. Public
Service Commission, (2006) 12 SCC
724)’.
13.1. It is therefore trite that candidates, having taken
part in the selection process without any demur or
protest, cannot challenge the same after having been
declared unsuccessful. The candidates cannot
approbate and reprobate at the same time. In other
words, simply because the result of the selection
process is not palatable to a candidate, he cannot
O.J.C. No.14605 of 1997 Page 85 of 102
allege that the process of interview was unfair or
that there was some lacuna in the process.
Therefore, we find that the writ petitioners in these
cases, could not have questioned before a Court of
law, the rationale behind recasting the selection
criteria, as they willingly took part in the selection
process even after the criteria had been so recast.
Their candidature was not withdrawn in light of the
amended criteria. A challenge was thrown against
the same only after they had been declared
unsuccessful in the selection process, at which
stage, the challenge ought not to have been
entertained in light of the principle of waiver and
acquiescence.
13.2. This Court in Sadananda HaloSadananda Halo Vrs.
Momtaz Ali Sheikh, (2008) 3 SCR 497 has noted that
the only exception to the rule of waiver is the
existence of mala fides on the part of the Selection
Board. In the present case, we are unable to find
any mala fide or arbitrariness in the selection
process and therefore the said exception cannot be
invoked.”
11.10. Ergo, this Court does not find substance in the
contention of Sri Banshidhar Baug, learned Senior
Advocate that even after the petitioner is found “not
suitable” for the post of Junior Operator (Field), he
should have been imparted training to equip himself.
The reason is simple that he could not even secure the
marks fixed to qualify for the post of “Junior Operator
(Field)”.
O.J.C. No.14605 of 1997 Page 86 of 102
12. A reference can also be made here to Inter-Office Memo
dated 23.04.1987, contents of which have been relied on
by Sri Banshidhar Baug, learned Senior Advocate by way
of written note of submission. Caption heading of the
said Inter-Office Memorandum reflects— “Preference in
employment to those whose land has been acquired” .
Clause 6 of said Inter-Office Memorandum clearly
envisages that “out of the identified and trained land
losers sponsored by Employment Exchange and found
suitable by applying above yardsticks, those whose land
holdings have been fully acquired shall be given
preference in employment vis-a-vis those whose land has
only been partially acquired for the project”.
12.1. The use of the word “preference” has significance and
the term has been interpreted in Pravasini Mohanty Vrs.
State of Odisha, 2023 SCC OnLine Ori 6483. It has been
observed therein as follows:
“11. It is next argued that this Court is required to weigh
the balance in favour of the appellant by considering
the term “preference” as contained in Clause 1(v) of
the Guidelines dated 24.11.1997. Valiant attempt
has been made on behalf of the appellant to
convince that the selection of Pravasini Mohanty to
be engaged as AWH in the Mahila Sabha Meeting
held on 30.01.2010 was on the basis of the fact that
preference in selection was required to be given to
“separated” woman candidate in view of Clause 1(v)
of the Guidelines referred to above. Therefore, it
O.J.C. No.14605 of 1997 Page 87 of 102
was posed that there was no necessity to
conduct interview/viva voce and even though
Pravasini Mohanty appeared, she should have
been given preference to Sukanti Nayak, who
has stated to have secured highest marks .
11.1. This Court, therefore, ventures to ascertain the
purport of the term “preference”.
11.2. In Sher Singh Vrs. Union of India, (1984) 1 SCC 107
= AIR 1984 SC 200, the Supreme Court examined
the provisions of Section 47(1) of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1939, providing for preference to the State
Transport Undertaking by grant of permit and
explained the meaning of ‘preference’ as under:
‘The expression ‘preference’ amongst others means
prior right, advantage, precedence etc. But how
would it be possible to give precedence one over the
other? It signifies that other things being equal, one
will have preference over the others. Preference in
this context would mean that with things generally
appearing to be qualitatively and quantitatively
equal though not with mathematical accuracy,
statutory provision will tilt the balance in favour of
the Undertaking.’
11.3. In Executive Officer Vrs. E. Tirupalu, (1996) 8 SCC
253 = AIR 1996 SC 1311 = (1996) 3 SCR 904, the
Supreme Court held that where rules provide for
preference to a particular class of candidates,
that preference under the Rules cannot be
applied irrespective of the merit of candidates,
the inmates have to be given appointment. It
means that the merit of the candidates being
equal, preference would be given to the inmates
O.J.C. No.14605 of 1997 Page 88 of 102
of the class which is to be given preferential
right and it certainly does not mean an
automatic appointment without considering
the cases of other candidates. Therefore, even if
the rules provide for preferential right, candidates
having such subjects would have preferential right
only when they compete with other candidates and
are found on equal footings, otherwise not.
11.4. In Secretary, Andhra Pradesh Public Service
Commission Vrs. Y.V.V.R. Srinivasulu, (2003) 5 SCC
341 = AIR 2003 SC 3961 = AIR 2003 SCW 2851, it
has been summarized as follows:
‘The ‘preference’ envisaged in the Rules, in our view,
under the scheme of things and contextually also
cannot mean, an absolute en bloc preference akin to
reservation or separate of complete precedence. *** It
is not to be viewed as a preferential right conferred
even for taking up their claims for consideration. On
the other hand, the preference envisaged has to be
given only when the claims of all candidates who
are eligible are taken for consideration and when
any one or more of them are found equally
positioned, by using the additional qualification as a
tilting factor, in their favour vis-a-vis others in the
matter of actual selection.’
11.5. In State of Uttar Pradesh Vrs. Om Prakash, (2006) 6
SCC 474 = AIR 2006 SC 3080 = AIR 2006 SCW
4281, the Supreme Court held that, the word
‘preference’ would mean that when the claims
of all candidates who are eligible and who
possess the requisite educational qualification
prescribed in the advertisement are taken for
consideration and when one or more of them
O.J.C. No.14605 of 1997 Page 89 of 102
are found equally positioned, then only the
additional qualification may be taken as a
tilting factor, in favour of candidates vis-à-vis
others in the merit list prepared by the
Commission. But ‘preference’ does not mean en
bloc preference irrespective of inter se merit and
suitability. In view of the above, it is evident that
question of giving preference would arise provided
the person claiming preference stands on equal
footing with others, otherwise not. Similar view may
be found in Abdul Hameed Vrs. Union of India,
(2017) 16 SCC 346).
11.6. Similarly, the appellant and the respondent No. 5 got
fairness in consideration of their respective merit
and the Selection Committee being experts in the
field, their decision cannot be lightly brushed aside.
In National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro
Sciences Vrs. Dr. K. Kalyana Raman, 1992 Supp (2)
SCC 481 it has been held as follows:
‘7. We will first consider the second point. In the
first place, it must be noted that the function of
the Selection Committee is neither judicial nor
adjudicatory. It is purely administrative. The
High Court seems to be in error in stating that
the Selection Committee ought to have given
some reasons for preferring Dr. Gauri Devi as
against the other candidate. The selection
has been made by the assessment of
relative merits of rival candidates
determined in the course of the interview
of candidates possessing the required
eligibility. There is no rule or regulation
brought to our notice requiring the
O.J.C. No.14605 of 1997 Page 90 of 102
Selection Committee to record reasons. In
the absence of any such legal requirement
the selection made without recording
reasons cannot be found fault with. The
High Court in support of its reasoning has
however, referred to the decision of this Court
in Union of India Vrs. Mohan Lal Capoor,
(1973) 2 SCC 836 = (1974) 1 SCR 797. That
decision proceeded on a statutory requirement.
Regulation 5(5) which was considered in that
case required the Selection Committee to record
its reasons for superseding a senior member in
the State Civil Service. The decision in Capoor
case, (1973) 2 SCC 836 = (1974) 1 SCR 797
was rendered on September 26, 1973. In June
1977, Regulation 5(5) was amended deleting
the requirement of recording reasons for the
supersession of senior officers of the State Civil
Services. The Capoor case, (1973) 2 SCC 836 =
(1974) 1 SCR 797 cannot, therefore, be
construed as an authority for the proposition
that there should be reason formulation for
administrative decision. Administrative
authority is under no legal obligation to record
reasons in support of its decision. Indeed, even
the principles of natural justice do not require
an administrative authority or a Selection
Committee or an examiner to record reasons for
the selection or non-selection of a person in the
absence of statutory requirement. This principle
has been stated by this Court in R.S. Dass Vrs.
Union of India, 1986 Supp SCC 617, in which
Capoor Case, (1973) 2 SCC 836 = (1974) 1 SCR
797 was also distinguished.
O.J.C. No.14605 of 1997 Page 91 of 102
8. As to the first point we may state at the outset
that giving of reasons for decision is different
from, and in principle distinct from, the
requirements of procedural fairness. The
procedural fairness is the main requirement in
the administrative action. The ‘fairness’ or ‘fair
procedure’ in the administrative action ought to
be observed. The Selection Committee cannot
be an exception to this principle. It must take a
decision reasonably without being guided by
extraneous or irrelevant consideration. But
there is nothing on record to suggest that the
Selection Committee did anything to the
contrary. The High Court however, observed,
that Dr. Kalyana Raman did not receive a fair
and reasonable consideration by the Selection
Committee. The inference in this regard has
been drawn by the High Court from the
statement of objections dated February 18,
1980 filed on behalf of the Selection Committee.
It appears that the Selection Committee took
the stand that Dr. Kalyana Raman did not
satisfy the minimum requirement of experience
and was not eligible for selection. The High
Court went on to state that it was somewhat
extraordinary for the Selection Committee after
calling him for the interview and selecting him
for the post by placing him second, to have
stated that he did not satisfy the minimum
qualifications prescribed for eligibility.
According to the High Court the stand taken by
the Selection Committee raises serious doubts
as to whether the deliberations of the Selection
Committee were such as to inspire confidence
and reassurance as to the related equality and
O.J.C. No.14605 of 1997 Page 92 of 102
justness of an effective consideration of this
case. It is true that selection of the petitioner
and the stand taken by the Selection
Committee before the High Court that he was
not eligible at all, are, indeed, antithetical and
cannot co-exist. But the fact remains that the
case of Dr. Kalyana Raman was considered
and he was placed second in the panel of
names. It is not shown that the selection was
arbitrary or whimsical or the Selection
Committee did not act fairly towards Dr
Kalyana Raman. The fact that he was placed
second in the panel, itself indicates that there
was proper consideration of his case and he
has been treated fairly. It should not be lost
sight of that the Selection Committee consisted
of experts in the subject for selection. They
were men of high status and also of
unquestionable impartiality. The Court should
be slow to interfere with their opinion.’
11.7. It is a settled position of law that when a
Selection Committee recommends the selection
of a person, the same cannot be presumed to
have been done in an erroneous or mechanical
manner in the absence of any allegation of
favouritism or bias. That a presumption arises
as regards the correctness of the decision of a
Selection Committee and the party who makes
the allegation of bias or favouritism is required
to prove the same. Thus, in the absence of mala
fides against the members, selection by a
Selection Committee cannot be doubted.
Reliance can be had on Union of India Vrs. Bikash
Kuanar, (2006) 8 SCC 192; Sadananda Halo Vrs.
O.J.C. No.14605 of 1997 Page 93 of 102
Momtaz Ali Sheikh, (2008) 4 SCC 619; University of
Mysore Vrs. C.D. Govinda Rao, (1964) 4 SCR 575.”
12.2. The Selection Committee compared the performance of
other candidates along with that of the petitioner in the
interview and found that the marks of the petitioner did
not attain the qualifying marks of 40. The result sheet
depicts that he secured merely 16 marks, which is much
less than the marks as was required to achieve
minimum qualifying marks for the job of Junior
Operator (Field). Thus, there was no question of
imparting training. Such being the position, the
petitioner by way of filing new and fresh documents
enclosing with the rejoinder affidavit sought to contend
that Jagannath Mohanty was the land loser along with
others. At this stage he discarded his stand that he was
the nominee of Smt. Suryamani Mohanty, grandmother
(vide paragraph 10 of the writ petition). Minute scrutiny
of the document, i.e., Record-of-Right depicts that
Ac.0.75decs. of land stands recorded in the names of not
only Jagannath Mohanty but also Laxman Mohanty and
Chintamani Mohanty. It would, therefore, be fallacious
to say that land of Jagannath Mohanty (described as
grandfather of the petitioner, whereas the grandmother
had nominated the petitioner) was acquired fully. As per
Clause 6 of Inter-Office Memorandum dated 23.04.1987,
stemming on which the learned Senior Counsel during
the course of hearing sought to build up his case,
O.J.C. No.14605 of 1997 Page 94 of 102
preference was to be given in employment to the land
loser whose land was acquired fully vis-a-vis land loser
whose land was acquired partially. Since the Record-of-
Right showing an area of Ac.0.75decs. stood in the
names of three persons, it could not, thus, be said that
the land of Jagannath Mohanty (only) was acquired fully.
It may be clarified that he may be land loser to the
extent of his share in the property is concerned.
12.3. Nevertheless, without entering into such controversy
which was never set up in the writ application, this
Court on the basis of interpretation of the word
“preference”, as discussed above, it is held that the
petitioner having not secured minimum qualifying marks
in the interview which was conducted in pursuance of
Order dated 09.09.1996 passed in O.J.C. No.2156 of
1995 he is not entitled to claim for the employment for
the post of Junior Operator (Field) under the
Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme. It is misconceived
approach to say on the part of the petitioner that the
petitioner should have been imparted training in terms
of the Office Memorandum dated 03.02.1986.
12.4. As the Selection Committee adjudged the petitioner as
not suitable for the post of Junior Operator (Field) in the
interview and he could not even secure minimum
qualifying marks, this Court does not find it apposite to
substitute the view expressed by the Selection
O.J.C. No.14605 of 1997 Page 95 of 102
Committee. This Court showing deference to the decision
of the Selection Committee based on material facts does
not feel it appropriate to exercise power of judicial review
invoking provisions of Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India.
Conclusion:
13. There is no denial by the petitioner to the assertion of
the opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 in counter affidavit that
the land losers were given due compensation. Rather in
the rejoinder affidavit dated 08.02.2024 a new plea is
sought to be set up by introducing the Record-of-Right
standing jointly in the names of Jagannath Mohanty,
Laxman Mohanty and Chintamani Mohanty. Such
factual position was never pleaded in the original writ
application filed way back in the year 1997, wherein
Smt. Suryama ni Mohanty is described as the
grandmother of the petitioner and a land loser.
14. The discussions made in the foregoing paragraph
without any ambiguity established that the Report of
CBI submitted before the Division Bench (while in seisin
of the matter against interlocutory order dated
10.12.2015 of learned Single Judge directing for enquiry
by the CBI in W.A. No.112 of 2016 wherein the
respondent was Trilochan Das, but not the instant
petitioner) cannot be utilized in the present case for non-
O.J.C. No.14605 of 1997 Page 96 of 102
joinder or misjoinder of necessary and/or proper parties.
The petitioner has not impleaded them as parties in their
individual capacity. Without confrontation of such
adverse observations, if any, made in the Report in
absence of necessary and proper parties the same
cannot enure to the benefit of the petitioner. It is not
denial fact that untested material cannot be utilized
without putting it to notice of the parties concerned.
15. Another significant observation in the matter would be
this, that the petitioner having appeared in the interview
responding to the Letter dated 18.09.1996 for the post of
“Junior Operator (Field)” issued in compliance of
direction of this Court in Order dated 09.09.1996 passed
in O.J.C. No.2156 of 1995 without any demur or protest,
he cannot turn round to say that interview should not at
all have been conducted for appraisal of qualifying
marks.
15.1. It may be stated that in the context of conflict between
the statutory provision and direction of the High Court
in a writ proceeding, the order in writ proceeding in
earlier round of litigation would prevail. A cue can be
taken from the following observation made in Tata
Refractories Ltd. Vrs. STO, (2003) 1 SCC 65:
“7. It is to be noted that the order of the High Court in
the earlier writ petition, namely, OJC No. 1200 of
1995 was made by the High Court in the exercise of
O.J.C. No.14605 of 1997 Page 97 of 102
its power under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India wherein while directing the
appellants to deposit the amount quantified therein,
the High Court also issued a direction to the
respondent State that it should refund the amount
with interest at the rate of 18% per annum in the
event of the appellants succeeding in the second
appeal. This order is definitely not one made under
the provisions of the Act. The respondent State
which took benefit of the said order and
retained the amount deposited by the
appellant, cannot now be permitted to say
when it comes to refund the direction issued by
the High Court in its order dated 15.03.1995
will not be binding on it and it is only the
provisions of the statute that will bind. As
noted above, it is not by invoking the provisions
of the Act, the deposit was directed to be made
by the High Court, hence, any direction made
while making an order under Articles 226 and
227, to deposit any sum of money will be
governed by the conditions imposed in the
order directing such deposit. On the contrary,
if any such condition as to the interest had not
been made by the High Court while directing
the deposit of the amount then it could be said
that the refund which may become payable will
be governed by the provisions of the State Act.
In the instant case, since the very order which
directed the deposit itself has directed the refund
with 18% interest, we have no doubt in holding the
said order as to mean that the refund should be
made with interest at the rate of 18% from the date
on which the amount was deposited pursuant to the
order of the High Court dated 15.03.1995.”
O.J.C. No.14605 of 1997 Page 98 of 102
15.2. Having offered his candidature with eyes wide open in
compliance of order of this Court in its own case, the
petitioner being adjudged not suitable for the post of
Junior Operator (Field) cannot stem upon the Inter-
Office Memorandum dated 23.04.1987 nor the Office
Memorandum dated 03.02.1986 issued by the Ministry
of Industry, Department of Public Enterprise as adopted
vide Letter dated 21.02.1986 issued by the Government
of India in Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas.
15.3. The fact remains that the petitioner participated in the
interview without any protest along with 138 candidates
sponsored by Employment Exchange and in obedience of
Order dated 09.09.1996 passed in O.J.C. No.2156 of
1995 in the interview conducted on 25-26-27.09.1996.
Results of the petitioner and Smt. Manjulata Mohanty
were published by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited
separately in view of said order of this Court in earlier
round of litigation.
15.4. At the cost of repetition it may be pertinent to have
reference to the Letter No.4/LA, dated 03.01.1997 of the
Collector, Balasore intimating the Managing Director of
the Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Kolkata that,
“In pursuance of the direction issued by the Hon’ble High
Court of Orissa vide Orders passed on 09.09.1996 in
O.J.C. No.2156 of 1995, Sri Pratap Chandra Mohanty, the
petitioner in the above O.J.C. as well as Smt. Manjulata
O.J.C. No.14605 of 1997 Page 99 of 102
Mohanty are eligible land loser’s candidates for
employment in Indian Oil Corporation Limited subject to
other prescribed conditions for the job”.
15.5. The Letter Ref. P&A/1121/LL/ER, dated 11.09.2000 of
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Calcutta addressed to the
Collector, Balasore is reproduced hereunder for proper
comprehension:
“Sub.: Finalisation of the case of land losers.
Dear Sir,
This has reference to your memo No:777/LA, dated
01.07.2000 and noted its content. In this regard we
would like to submit as under:
Kindly note that all the letters written by you in
connection with the rehabilitation of land losers were
replied as and when the same were received and
also on number of occasions meeting was held at
your office and we made our stand explicitly in this
regard. For your kind information we are enclosing
herewith two letters bearing Nos.P&A/1121/LL,
dated 05.08.1997 and 02.01.1998 which is self-
explanatory.
We would also like to submit that the situation has
further deteriorated and we have not been given any
approval from the Competent Authority for
recruitment of any category of workmen at Balasore
and Paradip. We have already communicated in the
past, the Corporation’s policy regarding recruitment
and rehabilitation of land losers also.
O.J.C. No.14605 of 1997 Page 100 of 102
The problem of recruitment of land losers of Balasore
at Paradip and the problem encountered in putting
the land losers from outside at Paradip outside have
been highlighted to you. We are facing lot of problem
in redeployment of workmen in view of the
automation at our various plants, terminals and
locations. Numbers of employees have applied for
VR at the instance of the management in order to
eliminate surplus manpower. Hence, it is difficult to
recruit any workmen at this juncture.
We hope you will kindly realize our position and
appreciate the difficulties in absorbing or going
ahead with the recruitment of any workmen at this
stage.
Thanking you.
Yours faithfully,
For Indian Oil Corporation Limited (MD)
Sd/- Deputy General Manager (HR), ER. ”
15.6. Taking cognizance of said Letter dated 11.09.2000 of the
Indian Oil Corporation Limited, a Division Bench of this
Court in Manoranjan Barik Vrs. The Collector and District
Magistrate, Balasore and others, W.P.(C) No.18821 of
2008, disposed of vide Order dated 01.03.2023 observed
thus:
“4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of
opposite party No.1, paragraph-6 thereof reads as
under:
‘6. That the Collector, Balasore, opposite party
No.1 has written a several letters to Indian Oil
O.J.C. No.14605 of 1997 Page 101 of 102
Corporation, opposite parties No.2, 3 and 4 to
absorb the empanelled land oustees and
ultimately the aforesaid opposite parties
vide their Letter No.1121 dated
11.09.2000 expressed their inability for
providing employment due to re-
deployment of workmen in view of
automation at their various plants,
terminals and locations. Xerox copy of Letter
dated 01.07.2000, dated 12.09.2000 and
05.12.2000 of Collector & District Magistrate,
Balasore are annexed and marked as
AnnexureA/1 (Series) and Letter No.1121
dated 11.09.2000 of Indian Oil Corporation
Ltd., Calcutta is annexed herewith as
Annexure-B/1.’
In view of the statement made in paragraph-6 of the
counter affidavit, this writ petition stands disposed
of.”
15.7. As the petitioner could not secure qualifying marks (i.e.,
40 marks, vide Annexure-A/4 enclosed with the counter
affidavit filed by the opposite party Nos.1 to 4) for the
post of “Junior Operator (Field)”, and for the reasons
ascribed hitherto with discussions made in the foregoing
paragraphs, the prayer(s) in the writ petition “to appoint
the petitioner in the LPG Bottling Plant, Balasore of the
Indian Oil Corporation Limited or in any other suitable
place” cannot be acceded to.
16. Having thus found no infirmity or irregularity in the
decision/action of the opposite parties in not providing
O.J.C. No.14605 of 1997 Page 102 of 102
employment to the petitioner, the writ petition deserves
to be dismissed being devoid of merit. This Court does
so.
17. In the result, the writ petition stands disposed of and
pending Interlocutory Application(s) shall also be
disposed of; but in the circumstances, there shall be no
order as to costs.
(MURAHARI SRI RAMAN )
JUDGE
High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
The 29th May, 2026//Bichi/MRS/Laxmikant
Login with google
Legal Notes
Add a Note....