Form No. J(2) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present: The Hon’ble Justice Sudip Deb WPA 23998 of 2009 Sagar Chandra Ghosh Vs. Union of India & Ors. For the petitioner : Mr. Samiran Mandal Mr. Nitish Samanta Ms. Shreyashee Mitra Ms. Aguiva Mandal For the Union of India : Mr. Indrajeet Dasgupta For the respondent Nos.2 to 5 : Mr. Dinabandhu Dan Mr. Dipankar Ghosh Heard on : 16.09.2026 Judgment on : 16.09.2026 Sudip Deb, J. (Dictated in Court) :- 1. On the last day when the matter was called on since nobody appeared on behalf of the respondents, this Court directed the petitioner to serve notice on all the respondents intimating the respondents the next date of hearing. Today, the petitioner has filed an affidavit of service which shows that the respondent Nos.1, 6 and 8 have been duly served. The affidavit of service is taken on record. 2 2. Despite service, nobody appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.6 to 8. The other respondents are duly represented. 3. The principal grievance of the writ petitioner in the instant writ petition is that even after making a representation for appointing the petitioner’s son under the land loser category, his name has not been considered by the respondent Nos.1 to 6. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner made two prayers which are quoted hereinbelow: Firstly, the petitioner seeks appointment of his son under the land loser category. Secondly, the representation made by the petitioner dated 29th December, 2008 seeking appointment of his son be considered by the respondents. 4. It appears from the records that when the writ petition was moved, direction was given for filing affidavits by a coordinate Bench of this Court. 5. Pursuant thereto, respondent Nos.2 to 5 have filed their affidavit-in- opposition. The petitioner has also filed his reply to the said affidavit-in-opposition. It further appears that pursuant to an order passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court a report in the form of an affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent Nos.7 and 8. This Court also takes not of the fact that no exception to the said 3 report has been filed and the same would be evident from the note of the department dated 20th November, 2025. 6. I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the petitioner and the respondent Nos.2 to 5. 7. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner while placing his case has drawn the attention of this Court to page 18 which is a representation of the petitioner made through his advocate dated 29th December, 2008 addressed to the respondent Nos.5, 6 and 8. By the said representation the petitioner requested the said respondents to consider the appointment of petitioner’s son. 8. Learned advocate for the petitioner has further drawn the attention of this Court to a hearing notice dated 9th July, 2003 by which the intimation was sent to the petitioner for attending the hearing to be held on 15th July, 2009 for considering such appointment. Learned advocate for the petitioner relying on all these two documents submits that the representation of the petitioner has not been considered by the respondents as yet. He further submits that though the petitioner has got compensation as land loser but in terms of the requirement policy which is annexed to page 18 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent Nos.2 to 5, the petitioner’s son has fulfilled the eligibility criteria and is entitled to be appointed in Group – D under the land loser category. 4 9. Learned advocate representing the respondent Nos.2 to 5 contends that the petitioner has already got adequate compensation in 1987 and after remaining silent for about 22 years the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition praying for appointment of his son on the ground of land loser. This apart, he also submits that the petitioner’s son did not fulfil the requirements for being appointed in Group-D category. He also submits that the representation had never been received by the MTPS (Mejia Thermal Power Station DVC). He submits that from the averment made in the writ petition itself it would be evident that the petitioner’s son never fulfilled the eligibility criteria for appointment in Group-D category as the petitioner himself has said in the writ petition that the petitioner’s son had passed the Madhyamik Examination in 2008. He further contends that when the application was made by the petitioner for appointment of his son in 2003, his son did not fulfil the eligibility criteria. 10. The Learned advocate for the respondent No. 1 did not make any submission. 11. I have gone through the pleadings as well as the documents annexed to the petition as also the report filed in the form of an affidavit on behalf of the respondent Nos.7 and 8. 12. It appears from the report filed by the respondent Nos.7 and 8 that the said respondents have categorically stated when the writ 5 petitioner was called on for hearing on 15th July, 2003 by Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bankura for verifying the original documents, the petitioner did not comply with the same. It further appears from the said report that the eligibility criteria for getting appointment in Group-D (lowest category of unskilled job) for which the petitioner has applied under land loser category discloses that (i) Minimum Class-VIIII pass; (ii) His/her age should be between 18 to 45 years (age is relaxation for SC/ST/OBC as per GOI norms); (iii) In case of nomination by the awardee, the nominee has to be either wife/husband/son/unmarried daughter who fulfils other criteria; (iv) Land loss percentage should be minimum 76 percent of the total land and minimum land holding should be 0.33 acres; (v) Land should have been acquired for MTPS construction on or before 20th March, 1986. 13. It also appears from the said report that the respondent Nos.7 and 8 have categorically taken a stand that they are not the appropriate authority who will issue the appointment letter to any person. The report further discloses that the Damodar Valley Corporation, MTPS (Mejia Thermal Power Station) is the appropriate authority who will consider the prayer of the petitioner for appointment in accordance with their declared policy. 14. The learned advocate for the respondent Nos.2 to 5 has also drawn the attention of this Court to the communications dated 8th April, 6 2025 and 11th April, 2025 which are part of the said report to substantiate that though the representation dated 29th December, 2008 had been addressed to the respondent Nos.5, 6 and 8 but the MTPS (Mejia Thermal Power Station DVC) did not receive the same. 15. It also appears that though the representation dated 29th December, 2008 alleged to have been sent to the respondent Nos.5, 6 and 8 but there is no evidence in the writ petition that the MTPS (Mejia Thermal Power Station DVC) have actually received the same. 16. There is no doubt that apart from receiving the compensation, the petitioner’s son if fulfils the criteria then is entitled to be appointed for the post as per the requirement policy for unskilled manual posts at MTPS but such appointment has to be given strictly adhering to the rules and regulations. 17. It is curious to note that in the instance case though the representation was made on 29th December, 2008 for considering the petitioner’s son’s appointment but at the same time averment has been made in the writ petition that the petitioner’s son had passed Madhyamik Examination in 2008. It is equally important to note that when the notice for considering the petitioner’s son for the post was issued on 9th July, 2003 by the respondent No.8, the petitioner’s son admittedly did not fulfil the eligibility criteria as he had not passed class VIII examination then. There is no iota of 7 evidence disclosed in the writ petition which shows that the petitioner’s son has fulfilled the eligibility criteria for making himself eligible for the post for which he has applied. 18. This is also a fact it does not appear anywhere from the records that the MTPS (Mejia Thermal Power Station DVC) had received the representation dated 29th December, 2008. 19. The law is well settled in this regard. The Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Damodar Valley Corporation & Ors. Vs. Sephali Majhi & Ors. has categorically stated referring to a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Punjab State Electricity Board and Ors. Vs. Malkiat Singh, reported in JT 2004 (8) SC 526 that every employment as an additional benefit in the case of land losers whose lands are acquired, to be made strictly in terms of the Scheme framed therefor. 20. From the documents annexed to the writ petition as well as from the compliance report filed on behalf of the respondent Nos.7 and 8 it does not appear to the Court that the petitioner’s son has fulfilled the eligibility criteria. This apart, there is also enough doubt as to whether the representation sent by the petitioner has actually been received by MTPS (Mejia Thermal Power Station DVC) or not. Another aspect of the matter which needs to be considered here that the petitioner has waited for 22 years in filing the present writ 8 application seeking appointment of his son after receiving the compensation in 1987 and there is no explanation offered by the petitioner in the instant writ petition for not approaching the Court in the interregnum. 21. In view of the aforesaid, the instant writ petition being WPA 23998 of 2009 stands dismissed. 22. It is made clear that this Court has only decided the issue of appointment of the petitioner’s son raised in the writ petition and nothing beyond that. 23. There will be no order as to costs. 24. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all formalities. (Sudip Deb, J.) ss