Calcutta High Court
Monoranjan Roy vs Union Of India & Ors. on 7 November, 1997
Equivalent citations: (1998)1CALLT322(HC), [1998(79)FLR980]
JUDGMENT R. Bhattachatyya, J.
1. The exposure of the factual premises of the case reflects the complete drowning of law and procedure in adjudging the claim of the petitioner who is equally circumstanced with others in connection with the offer of employment. The norm and procedure are completely shelved by the authorities and the petitioner became the target of arbitrariness when he was constrained to file the writ of mandamus along with other associated reliefs which included amongst others for a direction on the respondents to offer employment in favour of the nominated dependent of the petitioner without least delay.
2. The respondents floated a scheme to activate mining operations in Mouzas: Radhaballavpur and Samdi in consequence huge lands were taken possession of by the respondents after having recourse to requisition.
The petitioner has generated his grievance that the land of the petitioner was also taken possession of by requisition in connection with the L.A. Case No. 14R/84-85; but the respondent's authorities accorded full benefit by offering employments to five persons in the ratio of one employment against one acre of land. Unfortunately, the petitioner never came within the fold of such offer when it was offered to Nirmal, Lakshman. Shyamal. Dilip and Bipad. The petitioner repeatedly sought for an offer of employment in vain although similar benefit was accorded to others by the authority in the same ratio. The petitioner, since equally circumstanced, was not given the benefit was not given the benefit of the ratio which fostered a discrimination in regard to offer of employment. The action of the respondents not only contravenes the width of Articles 14, and 16 of the Constitution of India, but also the provisions of Articles 21 of the Constitution of India as arbitrariness committed by the respondents reached the extreme by denying the claim of the petitioner to become the subject of offer of employment. The action of the petitioner could, therefore, reasonably comes within the fold of writ Jurisdiction as the classification made by the respondents in offering employment not only suffers from perversity but also unreasonableness.
3. Having considered the contents of the application with reference to the documents on record, it appears to me that the classification made between the petitioner and the five persons, named above. is not at all a reasonable classification. There is no material-on-record that the classification, so made by the parties, had had any reasonable nexus. The respondents put the claim of the petitioner not in the same ration but in a ratio of 2:1 which has no nexus with the reasonableness. I am not unmindful that the role of Article 14 is aimed at to usher in healthy social order by providing equal treatment to all in order to make the fundamental rights not only meaningful but also life worthy living. Equality before law. as decided by the apex court, is a positive concept which cannot be denied at any rate when the discrimination is paramount in respect of the persons or individual equally circumstanced. Thus, the court in Dalmia Cement Bharat Limited v. Union of India held "the court of equality and equal protection of law guaranteed by Article 14 of the Constitution of India in its proper spectrum encompasses special and economic Justice in a political democracy as it is species to eliminate inequalities in status and to provide facilities and opportunities among the individual and ground of people to secure adequate means of livelihood which is the fountain of stability of political democracy."
4. In the background of the above, the treatment meted out to the petitioner verging an offer of employment suffers not only from class legislation but also from perversity. As such, classification is not permissible. The persons equally circumstanced are clothed with right to receive similar benefit as accorded to others as in the instant case. The authority cannot, in the back ground of the relief accorded to five persons in terms of the Scheme being floated, snap off the same benefit to the petitioner. The action of the respondents, in my view, has overriden the constitutional provisions as enshrined in Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. It also appears that the public authority failed to discharge the' duties as entrusted to it.
5. In the light of the above, this writ petition succeeds. Let a writ in the nature of Madams be issued directing the respondents to offer employment to the dependent of the petitioner within six weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
6. Considering the circumstances, I do not award any costs. With the above observations, this writ petition is, thus, disposed of.
7. Petition disposed of