ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited

Judgment

:: : O.J.C. No.14605 of 1997

20.03.2026 and 22.05.2026

29.05.2026 J UDGMENT 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 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 21st February, 1986 To The Chief Executive of all O.J.C. No.14605 of 1997 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 3rd 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 3rd 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 implications, Government had decided as follows: the matter in all

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 required, as also 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 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 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 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. justification, details O.J.C. No.14605 of 1997 identification, the surplus (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 Departments/ Ministries Undertakings to identify such surplus lands. This survey should be completed by Sept. 30, 1986 – After 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 land could be appropriate cases, released feasible, for afforestation. Wherever 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 terms and conditions in the original deed of acquisition. into consideration the surplus taking (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 townships, water supply, medical and educational 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 facilities etc. The O.J.C. No.14605 of 1997 of Environment and forest and placed before the Public Investment Board for decision. Industrial (iv) Before deciding on fresh acquisition of land, the concerned Infrastructure Development Corporations of the States should be consulted and the availability of acquired ascertained. This will minimise the need for new acquisition with all its consequent problems. land with

3. Compensation: reasonable 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 time. The beneficiaries within a 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 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 like roads, water supply, sanitation, amenities educational and medical etc. All expenditure thereon will be a charge on the project. facilities (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 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 the project, subject O.J.C. No.14605 of 1997 (v) 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. In the context of the urgent necessity of public sector enterprises operating at commercially viable levels and generating adequate internal resources, over to be guarded against. Any meaning has 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 to useful families the dispossessed 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. taking (vi) The progress of rehabilitation of the dispossessed families will be monitored by the Rehabilitation Cells the same manner as monitoring of 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 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 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 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 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 interview scheduled to be held on 25.09.1996, petitioner has not been issued any call notice. to appear at

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 to be the question of eligibility of petitioner 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 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 application be granted by tomorrow.” the order on proper

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 employment in Indian Oil Corporation Limited subject to other prescribed conditions for the job”. loser’s candidates

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 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 Qualification Age Experience : : : SSC (X Std.) 40 years as on 30.04.1996 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 certificates, together with photocopy of 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 a Government In case you are employed 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 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 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 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

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 liable to be prayer being devoid of merit 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 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 Annexure-3 dated 18.09.1996. This was a one time measure which is over. this Hon’ble Court as evident

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, pursuance to the Circular of the Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas No.J/25011747/6-GEN O.J.C. No.14605 of 1997 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 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

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 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. in OJC No.2156 of 1995 It is submitted that the order of the Hon’ble High Court is clear and unambiguous. The order dated 09.09.1996 of this Hon’ble Court has been complied with and the petitioner was called 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

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 test/interview on had appeared 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

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 he stated to be at the age of about 25 years) has come to be filed with the following assertions: “4. That with regard the averments made 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. the averments made That with regard 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 the scheme under found unsuitable, as per 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 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 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. the averments made That with regard 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 the averments made 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 20081, 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 regard to the irregularities and illegalities in giving appointment to the land loser’s family. The CBI after its report clearly due enquiry has submitted 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. between 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.’

3. 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. 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 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 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 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 Consideration of submissions of counsel respective parties and analysis thereof with respect to in the case of Indian Oil CBI Report submitted 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 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, 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 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 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 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: fides or bias was ‘It is a settled law that the person against whom 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 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.’ in AIR 2003 Supreme Court 1344, Recently 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