Allowed

Lakkaraju Sanyasi Rao, Visakhapatnam District v. Md, Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. (Vizag Steel Plant) and 3 Other

Andhra Pradesh HC23 Mar 2023WP/6716/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed by a displaced person's nominee against Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd for non-appointment as Junior Trainee after clearing an interview. The Court directed the Respondent to consider the petitioner's case for employment within two months, distinguishing his situation from his brother who received employment on merit basis.

What did the court decide?

Respondent directed to consider petitioner's case for appointment as Junior Trainee within two months.

Lakkaraju Sanyasi Rao, Visakhapatnam District… — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

•i

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

O-Cwls

¶5

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 6716 OF 2015

¶9

Between:

¶10

Lakkaraju Sanyasi Rao, S/o. Late Nookayya @ Nooka Raju, aged 30 years D No 6- V^hlXTolstricT”'’’ V#** Gaiuwaka Mandal,

¶11

AND

¶12

...PETITIONER

¶13

“■ Y Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd., (RINL), Visakhapatnam.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue any writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS declaring the inaction and part of the Respondent in appointing the petitioner as Junior Trainee in terms of selection as per the interview dated 10-01-2013 is arbitrary; illegal and consequently direct the Respondents to appoint the petitioner as the Junior Trainee (Mechinical) w.e.f. the date on which other persons in respect of the same notification were appointed with all consequential and attendant benefits.

¶16

LA. NO: 1 OF 2015fWPMP. NO: 8947 OF 2015)

¶17

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to

¶18

direct the Respondents to consider issuance of appointment order in pursuance of interview held on 10-01-2013 for the post of Junior Trainee (Mechanical) to the petitioner pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K.R. SURYA PRAKASH RAO FOR M/s. A. V. S. LAXMI

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 : SRI V. RAVINDER RAO

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI K SARVA BHOUMA RAO

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

¶24

W.P.No.6716 of 2015 VS,J

¶25

<•

¶26

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V. SUJATHA

¶27

WRIT PETITION No.6716 of 2015

¶28

ORDER;

¶29

The present writ petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

¶30

"...to issue any writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction and part of the Respondent in appointing the petitioner ds Junior Trainee in terms of selection as per the interview dated 10.01.2013 is arbitrary, illegal and consequently direct the Respondents to appoint the petitioner as the Junior Trainee (Mechanical) w.e.f. the date on which other persons in respect of the same notification were appointed with all consequential and attendant benefits and to pass...” 2. The petitioner is the son of displaced person whose lands have been acquired for the purpose of Visakhapatnam Steel Plant, for which the petitioner’s father was given R-Card No.46 of Danaboyanapalem. As the petitioner studied 10*^ class and also had undergone I.T.I. Course and holds an Apprenticeship Certificate, he got his name registered in Sub-Employment Exchange Office, Steel Plant, Gajuwaka, which is exclusively meant for displaced persons vide Registration No.U9/2011/50, dated 13.07.2011, on the petitioner’s father’s R-Card, as he is being nominated by his father.

¶31

¶32

W.P.No.6716 of 2015 vs,J

¶33

The petitioner appeared for recruitment notification (No.PL/NER/342) dated 12.12.2012 for the post of Junior Trainee (Mechanical) and he also passed the written test held on 22.07.2012 and thereafter, cleared the interview on 10.01.2013. The petitioner was selected against displaced persons quota. Thereafter, though the other displaced persons were being appointed, the petitioner’s case was kept for verification of the R- Card issued to him by the Special. Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Steel Plant, Visakhapatnam.

¶34

The petitioner’s name was sponsored by Sub Employment Exchange Gajuwaka along with other displaced persons for the said post. In spite of this, the office of the Respondent has addressed several letters to the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Steel Plant and to confirm the genuineness of the R-Card. The petitioner’s brother i.e., L. Appalaraju, got employment under direct recruitment to the post of OCM (Operator-Cum-Mechanic) as he possesses I.T.I. qualification and also possesses heavy vehicle driving license along with an experience of 3 years. Challenging the action of the respondents, in not appointing him as Junior Trainee, in terms of the selection as per the interview, dated 10.01.2013, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

¶35

¶36

W,P.No.6716 of 2015 VS,J

¶37

¶38

¶39

The 3rd respondent herein, -has filed a counter stating that the petitioner’s brother has already utilized the R-Card for obtaining employment and in view of the same, the candidature of the petitioner was kept in abeyance till a clear confirmation is obtained from the Land Acquisition Authorities of . the Government of Andhra Pradesh and further stated that as per G.O.Rt.No.35, dated 12.01.2007 issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh regarding the issue of transfer of R-Cards and provide employment opportunities, to R-Card holders who are over aged and who are unable to work at this distant time, may request the Government to transfer the R-Card to his son or major unmarried daughter by cancelling the orders issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.lll, dated 15.04.1999 of Ind 8b Com(INF) Deptt. .

¶40

6. It is further stated in the counter that it can be seen that the spirit behind the GO.Rt.no.35, dated 12.01.2007 issued by Government of Andhra Pradesh regarding the issue of transfer of R-Cards was to facilitate only in such cases where the original R-Card holder is not in a position to take up employment. But, it is to submit that Sri. L. Appalaraju, elder son of the original R- Card holder, got employment in RINL-VSP as Operator-cum-

¶41

¶42

W.P.No.6716 of 2015 VS,J

¶43

Mechanic in the year 2008 against Rectt.Advt.No.6/2007 arid his employee Number is 121021. Sri Appalaraju (elder sOn) had mentioned his R-Card details in the Bio-data form submitted by him at the time of interview. Thus, the transfer of R-Card from elder son (Sri Appalaraju, the first nominee) to younger son (Sri Sanyasi Rao) was not based on the correct premise as the first nominee was holding technical qualification; not over-aged and had already got. employment in steel plant as OCM in the year 2008 itself.

¶44

7. In view of the admitted facts in the counter of the 3*^ respondent, it is clear that the petitioner’s brother got the employment only basing on the merit but not on the basis of the R-Card. But, however, it is the petitioner on whose favour the R- Card was transferred by his father and thereafter, the petitioner got his name registered in the Sub Employment Exchange office. Steel Plant, Gajuwaka, which is exclusively made for displaced persons, on 13.07.2011, .on his father’s R-Card as he was specifically nominated by his father but. not his elder brother.

¶45

In view of the said fact that the petitioner was already qualified in the written examination and also cleared the interview on 10.01.2013, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for employment as Junior Trainee, at an

¶46

¶47

¶48

W.P.No.6716 of 2015 vs,J

¶49

earliest point, by duly considering the fact that the petitioner is the only person who is being nominated by his father under displaced quota and in whose favour the R-Card was transferred, but not the petitioner’s brother. who has obtained the employment on merit basis . The said process of appointing the petitioner as Junior Trainee shall be completed within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶50

Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of.

¶51

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶52

O .. sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, ''V' shall stand closed.

¶53

1, a

¶54

SD/- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY! REGISTRARS //TRUE COPY// SEC N OFFICER

¶55

To.

¶56

Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. (Visakhapatnam Steel Plant), Rep.by its Chairman & Managing Director, Visakhapatnam District.

¶57

Director Personnel, rep. by its Dr. G.B. S. Prasad, Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd (RINL), Visakhapatnam.

¶58

The General Manager (HR CP&C), rep by its R.V. Rao, Rashtriya Ispat.Nigam Ltd (RINL), Visakhapatnam.

¶59

Sri R.V.Rao, The General Manager (HR CP&C), Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd., (RINL), Visakhapatnam.

¶60

5.i One CC to M/s. A. V. S. Laxmi, Advocate [OPUC]

¶61

One CC to Sri V. Ravinder Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 7. One CC to Sri K. Sarva Bhouma Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 8. Two C.D. Copies Cnr

HIGH COURT

DATE0:23/03/2023

ORDER

WP.No.6716 of 2015
pstb
I3

¶68

fe 2 1 AUG 2323

¶69

DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS

Lakkaraju Sanyasi Rao, Visakhapatnam District v. Md, Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. (Vizag Steel Plant) and 3 Other

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lakkaraju Sanyasi Rao, Visakhapatnam District v. Md, Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. (Vizag Steel Plant) and 3 Other

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. R. Bhadramma, VISAKHAPATNAM-1. Vs the A.P. Housing Board, Hyderabad, and 2 Otrs.

R Jagadeesan Vs the State of Ap

Tadepalli Tataji Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

S. v. B. Anand, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M.V.V. Satyanarayana S/o. Late Narayana Murthy, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal

S. Meera Maddin at Babji, Attender. Vs The State of Ap