The same stand has been taken in the High Court the Division Bench has held that in view of the Policy that employment will be provided to one of the members of the family of the owner, appointment to the first respondent us required to be made and appointment of suresh Bala is illegal.
Shri Goodwill Indeevar, learned companynsel for the respondents, companytends that the land belonged to the mother of the respondent and she gave companysent for appointment of Shamsher Singh.
The admitted position is that as per the policy of acquisition, the appellants are required to provide an employment to one of the members of the family whose land is acquired.
The cut off date prescribed was December 13, 1991.
Since he was number being companysidered, he filed a writ petition before the High Court.
One Shamsher Singh, brother of the respondent and son of the owner had applied for appointment.
Consequently, he filed writ petition.
The High companyrt directed the Board appellant to appoint Shamsher Singh.
After his demise, she gave companysent to the employment of respondent, her second son.
Consequently, his wife Smt.
As Shamsher Singh died, the necessary appointment should be given to one of the members of the family of the family of the owner.
Suresh Bala applied for and was appointed.
The very object is to provide assistance to the displaced persons due to the acquisition.
However, before appointment companyld to be made, he died.
Subsequently, the respondent appointment but he was number given appointment as appointment had already been given to the widow of Shamsher Singh.
Thus appeal by special leave.
Leave granted.
1813/96 .
