Dismissed

Y. Srinivasulu, v. The Managing Director

Andhra Pradesh HC17 Mar 2023WP/6994/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Supreme Court disposed of a writ petition where petitioners, whose land was acquired for a power project, complained they were not considered for employment under the Land Loosers Quota. The Court directed authorities to consider their cases in 50% of future vacancies under the 1986 Government Order.

What did the court decide?

Directing the respondents to consider the petitioners' cases in 50% of future vacancies under Land Loosers Quota in RTPP with priority.

Y. Srinivasulu, Vs The Managing Director — Land Acquisition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.6994 of 2015

¶2

ORDER :

¶3

The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-

¶4

“….to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of the respondents herein in not considering the candidature of the petitioners under Land Loosers Quota for the post of Junior Plant Attendant or any other posts as arbitrary, illegal, void abinitio besides violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and principles of natural justice, further may be pleased to direct the respondents 1 & 2 herein to consider the petitioners’ cases for the appointment of Junior Plant Attendant Post or any suitable posts in RTPP in the available vacancies under the Land Loosers Quota under G.O.Ms.No.98, Irrigation (Project Wing) Department, dated 15.04.1986.….”

¶5

The brief facts of the case are, the land of the first petitioner were acquired for the purpose of construction of RTPP, Phase – IV, as per the District Gazette Notification No.3, dated 11.02.1992 and the petitioner was paid compensation vide Award No.1/93-94, dated 22.03.1994 by the LAO and RDO, Jammalamadugu, Kadapa District. Likewise, the second petitioner’s father’s land was also acquired for the same purpose and compensation was also paid on the same day that is 22.03.1994.

¶6

¶7

The petitioners’ grievance is that Government of Andhra Pradesh has issued G.O.Ms.No.98, Irrigation (Project Wing) Department, dated 15.04.1986 under which a suitable employment is provided to the displaced persons or to their dependents, where the land has been acquired for the purpose of Major and Medium Irrigation of Power Projects. As per the said G.O., 50% of the posts shall be reserved for Land Loosers / displaced persons and the candidates eligible for appointment under this scheme shall be the displaced persons of his / her son, daughter or spouse being no other earning member in the family.

¶8

Subsequently, G.O.Ms.No.266, dated 19.09.1994 was also issued in continuation of G.O.Ms.No.98 under, which a Committee has been constituted, under the chairmanship of District Collector and the members are the Joint Collector and the Chief Engineer of the concerned project. As the petitioners are eligible, they have submitted their applications for Job under the Land Loosers Quota and as their candidatures were not considered, they have filed the present writ petition.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioners, during the course of argument, has produced a copy of Memo.No. CEO&M/RTPP /SEA&MM/Adm/AAO/JAO/B1/W.P.No.1450/15D.No. 302/15

¶10

¶11

dated 20-04-2015 addressed by the 2^nd respondent to the 1^st

¶12

petitioner wherein he states as follows:

¶13

“……In terms of G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 15.04.1986, as and when we go for direct recruitment, 50% of such vacancies will be considered for land loosers quota upon such direct recruitment notification. The cases of the petitioners will be considered in future for any of the notified posts duly following the District Selection Committee seniority list and Rule of Reservation, under land loosers quota of 50% subject to fulfillment of Selection Criteria.

¶14

In case if the posts are available in relation to the land loosers category as per the notification issued for recruitment of Junior Assistant/JPA, the case of the petitioners may be considered for appointment. If the vacancies have been filled up and no posts is available, as per Rule-4(1) of G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 15.04.1986 they may be considered for appointment in the 50% posts that may raise in the future.

¶15

In RTPP, then there are no vacancies of Junior Plant Attendants as per notifications. In term of G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 15.04.1986 as and when we go for direct recruitment of the post of Junior Assistants/Junior Plant Attendants, 50% of such vacancies will be considered for land looser quota upon such Direct Recruitment notification, the petitioner may seek employment under land looser quota subject to fulfillment of Selection Criteria. Hence, the candidature of the petitioner cannot be considered.”

¶16

In view of the same, this Court feels it appropriate to

¶17

dispose of this Writ Petition directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners in terms of G.O.Ms.No.98,

¶18

¶19

dated 15.04.1986 in 50% of future vacancies under Land Loosers Quota by giving priority to the petitioners.

¶20

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶21

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed.

¶22

______________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶23

Date : 17.03.2023 PSR/KBS

¶24

¶25

209

¶26

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶27

WRIT PETITION No.6994 OF 2015

¶28

Date: 17.03.2023

¶29

PSR/KBS

Y. Srinivasulu, v. The Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Y. Srinivasulu, v. The Managing Director

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

K.Tirumaleshwar Reddy S/o Bhaskar Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

G.Ramanjaneyulu, Vs The State of a.P., Rep. by its Principal Secretary

R.Narasimha Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Nagothi Siva Kumari, Vs The Asst. General Manager

Chintham /Chintala Satish Kumar Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

K. Gunasagar Vs The Disciplinary Authority-cum-Asst. General Manager