Why a Balasore land loser failed in 30-year-old recruitment fight against Indian Oil despite being ‘eligible’
The Orissa High Court was hearing a petition filed by a man who sought a direction for his appointment at the Indian Oil Corporation’s LPG Bottling Plant under a scheme for land losers.
The Orissa High Court said that it is a misconceived approach to say on the part of the petitioner that he should have been imparted training. (AI-generated image) The Orissa High Court has dismissed a nearly 30-year-old claim by a man seeking recruitment with Indian Oil Corporation’s (IOC) Balasore LPG bottling plant, holding that a candidate who participates in a recruitment process without objection cannot challenge it later merely because he was unsuccessful.
Justice Murahari Sri Raman found that the petitioner, whose family land had been acquired for the project, had secured only 16 marks in the interview against the minimum qualifying score of 40 and, hence, had no right to appointment.
“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 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,” the May 29 order read.
Justice Murahari Sri Raman found no infirmity in the decision of the authority concerned in not employing the petitioner.
The high court was hearing a petition filed by Pratap Chandra Mohanty, who sought a direction for his recruitment at IOC’s LPG Bottling Plant in Balasore under a rehabilitation scheme for land losers.
‘Misconceived approach’
- The high court found no infirmity or irregularity in the decision/action of the authority concerned in not granting recruitment to the petitioner, and dismissed the plea.
- It held that the petitioner, having not secured minimum qualifying marks in the interview conducted as per the September 1996 order of the high court, is not entitled to claim employment for the post of Junior Operator (Field) under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme.
- The court added that it is a misconceived approach to say on the part of the petitioner that the petitioner should have been imparted training.
- It clarified that it is not the case of the petitioner that the rules of the game were changed after the game had begun.
- The court noted that the selection committee compared the performance of other candidates along with that of the petitioner in the interview and found that his marks did not attain the qualifying marks of 40.
- Since the petitioner only secured 16 marks, much less than the minimum qualifying marks for recruitment, there was no question of imparting training.
- The court clarified that in the absence of mala fides against the members, the selection by a selection committee cannot be doubted.
- It was stated that participation and acquiescence would not entail the participant to question the selection process.
Land acquired in 1988
It was placed on record that in 1988, the state government, under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, acquired a large area of agricultural lands in the village of Bamapda and Chhanpur in the district of Balasore for the establishment of a Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) bottling plant by Indian Oil Corporation Limited.
It was added that for the said purpose, an area of land of the father of the petitioner was acquired by the state government. Therefore, the grandmother of the petitioner, Suryamani Mohanty, lost her agricultural land.
It was further stated that, as per the circular issued by the Union Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, dated February 21, 1986, each of the land losers’ families or their nominees would be provided with a suitable job in the said bottling plant.
It was added that as per the circular, the additional district magistrate, by a letter of May 19, 1989, forwarded the list of names along with the necessary particulars of the land losers. However, it was claimed that the name of the petitioner, as nominee of his grandmother, was not sponsored.
Later, in 1995, the petitioner’s grandmother nominated him for appointment under the rehabilitation scheme. He subsequently approached the high court after disputes arose over his nomination.
Court intervention, interview
- In an earlier round of litigation in 1996, the high court directed that the petitioner be allowed to participate in the recruitment process, subject to the determination of his eligibility.
- Later, the petitioner appeared for an interview for the post of junior operator (field). However, the selection committee found him unsuitable for the post.
- In 1997, the collector informed the IOC that the petitioner was an eligible land-loser candidate, but clarified that eligibility remained subject to the prescribed conditions for the recruitment.
- Finally, the petitioner filed the present petition seeking a direction to the IOC to appoint him at the LPG Bottling Plant as a land loser.
Arguments
Representing the petitioner, Senior Advocate Banshidhar Baug argued that the collector concerned sponsored the name of the petitioner as “eligible land loser candidate” for employment in Indian Oil Corporation Limited which confers him the right to the post of junior operator (field).
It was further contended that the steps should have been taken to offer training to equip the petitioner to be considered for recruitment in the project.
Baug mentioned that the subject of land acquisition and rehabilitation aspects was not appropriately considered by the authorities concerned.
Appearing for the IOC, advocate Sailesh Chandra Samantaray, along with others, argued that the petition was misconceived, and the interview was conducted, and the allegations and averments of the petitioner are liable to be dispelled.
Share
