Dismissed

R.Kothandaraman v. State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC5 Jan 2017WP/1186/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a Screening Committee's rejection of his employment application under the 'one job for one family' policy, claiming his mother's land was acquired. The court dismissed the petition noting that employment had already been provided to another son of the same land awardee.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with costs directed to be borne by the petitioner. Connected miscellaneous petition closed.

R.Kothandaraman Vs State of Tamilnadu — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 05.01.2017

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. KRISHNAKUMAR

¶5

W.P. No. 1186 of 2011

¶6

and

¶7

M.P.1 of 2011

¶8

Kothandaraman .. Petitioner Vs.

¶9

State of Tamil Nadu,

¶10

Rep. by the Secretary, Industries Department, Fort St. George, Chennai.

¶11

The Collector, Vellore District

¶12

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranipet, Vellore District.

¶13

BHEL (BAP) Unit,

¶14

Rep. By its Executive Director,

¶15

Ranipet, Vellore District. .. Respondents

¶16

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1^st and 4^th respondent to appoint the petitioner in the 4^th respondent unit following the policy of one job for one family of whose lands were acquired by the 1^st respondent for the benefit of the 4^th respondent.

¶17

For Petitioner : M/s. A.B.Fathima Sulthana

¶18

For RR 1 to 3 : Mr. S.Diwakar,

¶19

Special Govt. Pleader For R4 : Mr.John Zachariah for M/s. Fox Mandal Association

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

Heard Ms.A.B.Fathima Sulthan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. S.Diwakar, learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.John Zachariah, learned counsel appearing for the respondent 4.

¶22

The petitioner has come up with the present writ petition praying to direct the 1^st and 4^th respondents to appoint the petitioner in the 4^th respondent-unit following the policy of

¶23

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶24

“one job for one family”, of whose lands were acquired by the 1^st respondent for the benefit of the 4^th respondent.

¶25

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the 1^st respondent has issued G.O.Ms.No.67, dated 27.01.1981, Industries Department, by which the 1^st respondent imposed a condition that the displaced persons should be provided with employment by the 4^th respondent. The land herein mentioned belongs to the mother of the petitioner, which was acquired by the 1^st respondent for the benefit of the 4^th respondent as per Award No.4/82, which was situated at survey no.74/1, at Vadakkal Village. According to the petitioner that no one was provided employment as per the award in favour of the petitioner's mother Kothainayagi. Hence, the petitioner applied for the job on 05.08.2008 with respect to the above said award. But, he was not given job as per the Government order in G.O.Ms.No.67, dated 27.01.1981.

¶26

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, a batch of Writ Petitions in W.P.No.2906 of 1995 etc. was filed before this Court by the erstwhile landowners, and this Court, by an order dated 18.09.1995, has directed the 4^th respondent to consider the case of the erstwhile landowners, in preference to others in the matters of recruitment. Subsequently, this Court by an order dated 13.05.2008 made in W.P.No. No.4113 of 1998 and others (Batch), directed the 3^rd respondent to notify the constitution of a Screening Committee and give adequate publicity to the land losers to appear before the Committee with necessary records.

¶27

The order in W.P.Nos.2906 of 1995 etc. batch is upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 1394 of 1995. In W.P.No.4113 of 1998 and others (batch), by an order dated 13.05.2008, this Court allowed the Writ Petition directing to form a Screening committee and to examine the applicants claim. Aggrieved by the same, the 4^th respondent filed appeals in W.A.Nos.1275 to 1277 of 2008 (batch), which were dismissed by this Court, by a judgment dated 29.09.2010. Therefore, the present Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner with the above said prayer.

¶28

According to the learned counsel for the 4^th respondent, the petitioner has submitted his application to the Screening Committee claiming employment and he was asked to appear before the Screening Committee on 16.11.2011. The petitioner appeared before the Screening committee on that date for enquiry. After due enquiry, the Screening Committee rejected the claim of the petitioner, as employment in respect of the said land was already provided to R.Venkatesan in the 4^th

¶29

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶30

respondent company at Ranipet, who is the son of the land awardee and he is in employment in the 4^th respondent company since 29.04.1985. Therefore, the petitioner's prayer in the Writ Petition as well as the averments made in this Writ Petition cannot be considered. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶31

In view of the said fact that the Screening committee had considered the petitioner's application and the same was rejected for the reason that one R.Venkatesan was already employed in the 4^th respondent company from 29.04.1985. Therefore, the petitioner once again appeared before this Court, challenging the decision of the said Committee, has filed this Writ Petition before this Court and it cannot be entertained. Already one of the son of the awardee, R.Venkatesan provided employment in the 4^th respondent unit. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted and the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶32

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No Costs.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
pvs
To
1. State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by the Secretary, Industries Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai.
2. The Collector,
Vellore District.
3. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Ranipet, Vellore District.
SS(CO)
RS(02/03/2017)
W.P. No. 1186 of 2011

¶33

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

R.Kothandaraman v. State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Kothandaraman v. State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G.Marichamy, Vs the Chief Secretary to

Paruchuri Global Foundation Vs Chief Educational Officer

Paruchuri Global Foundation, Vs Chief Educational Officer

B.Tamilarasi Vs the Secretary

S.Balakrishnan, Vs the State of Tamilnadu

Indo Fly Ash Association Vs the Union of India