WP/34591/2011 of B. Ravi Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep by its on 30 December 2011

ORDER:

This writ petition has been filed seeking for issuance of Writ of Mandamus declaring the restriction contained in Note-(iii) tosupplementary notification dated 17.10.2011 issued by the 2[nd] respondent where under the claim of the petitioners for the post ofJunior Plant Attendant is confined to land-loosers of power generatingstations only, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of rights guaranteedunder Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and furtherviolative of provisions contained in G.O.Ms.No.98 dated 15.04.1986and further violative of ratio contained in decision rendered by thisCourt in W.P. No.1529 of 2011 and batch dated 31.01.2011.

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are the land losersunder Joorala project. The respondents have issued supplementarynotification dated 17.10.2011 calling for the applications for filling up of1086 posts of Junior Plant Attendant by way of direct recruitment asper the notification dated 05.01.2011. As far as the Mahaboobnagardistrict is concerned, total 41 posts are notified under Hydro ElectricalStations situated in Priyadarshini Joorala Project. Pursuant to the saidnotification, the petitioners have made applications for beingconsidered their candidature for the appointment to the post of JuniorPlant Attendant under the land losers quota but the respondentsauthorities have not forwarded their applications to the DistrictCollector for the purpose of consideration on the ground that thevacancies arose under the PJHES/General for which purpose no land of the petitioners were acquired but the land was acquired only for thepurpose of Thermal Power Stations. Therefore, the candidature of the petitioners cannot be considered for thevacancies arose in PJHES.

The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that on theearlier occasion this Court adjudicated the similar writ petitions in W.P.No.1529 and 1566 of 2011 on 31.01.2011 while considering therelevant G.O.Ms. No.98, dated 15.04.1986 and G.O.Ms.No.226, dated19.09.1994. It is also submitted that following the orders passed in thesaid writ petitions, this Court adjudicated the W.P. No.32623 of 2011on 13.12.2011. He also submitted that oral objection raised by therespondents is that the relevant vacancies have been notified underPJHES but not in Thermal Power Project, therefore, the case of thepetitioners cannot be considered, in this regard, he submits that theHydro Electrical Power Project is the part and parcel of Thermal PowerProject.

He further submitted that it is the duty of the concerned respondentsauthorities to forward the applications of the petitioners to the DistrictCollector for scrutiny where the District Collector authorities will decidewhether the applicants are the land losers or not, based on therecords.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learnedstanding counsel and perused the material on record.

The only grievance of the petitioners is that pursuant to thesupplementary notification dated 17.10.2011 they have applied for thevacancies notified there under and insofar as the MahaboobnagarDistrict is concerned, their applications were not forwarded to theDistrict Collector for scrutiny on the ground that the land of thepetitioners was not acquired for Hydro Electrical Stations inPriyadarshini Joorala project but their land was acquired for the purpose of Thermal Power Project, for which, the learned counsel for the petitioner referred the order dated31.01.2011 passed by this Court in W.P. No.1529 and 1566 of 2011,which the relevant para reads as under:

“Since the respondent Corporation agreed to abideby the policy decision taken by the StateGovernment, as a rehabilitation mechanism of theland losers, suffice it, for the present, to direct therespondents to subject the cases of such of thoseapplicants, who claimed recruitment against 50%land losers quota, to be examined by the appropriateselection committee of the district concerned andbased upon the recommendations of the saidselection committee, the follow up action offinalization of the selections be undertaken by therespondent Corporation, duly following and observingthe other suitability conditions, such as possessingappropriate technical qualifications.

It is needless to observe that the officials of theselection committee concerned at the time ofselecting the displaced persons for appointment. Such objections are liable to be taken into accountand consideration by the said committee. It is alsoopen to the committee to scrutinize the qualifications,which are required for being employed with therespondent Corporation.

With this, the Writ Petitions are disposed of at theadmission stage, leaving all other questionsunanswered as they are not called for, for thepresent, to be answered. No costs.”

It is clear from the above that the Corporation had agreed to abide bythe policy decision taken by the State Government and this Court hadalready considered the G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 15.04.1986 andG.O.Ms.No.266, dated 19.09.1994 in the said order.

The oral objection stated to have been raised by the respondentsthat the vacancies arose under the PJHES and not in Thermal PowerStations, therefore, the case of the petitioners cannot be considered is not sustainable unless and until there is any clear instructionscontaining either in the memo or in the form of G.O. issued by theGovernment to the effect that the Hydro Electrical Stations did not fitwithin the definition of projects referred to in G.O.Ms.No.98, dated15.04.1986.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and thesubmissions made by the learned counsel and also following thejudgment referred to hereinabove, this writ petition can be disposed ofwith the following direction.

The respondents are directed to consider the case of thepetitioners and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, andconsequently take all necessary steps to consider the cases of thepetitioners for providing employment to the post of Junior PlantAttendant as already held by this Court in the judgment referred tohereinabove.

Accordingly, with the above direction, this writ petition isdisposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

_________________________

JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

Date: 30.12.2011LSK