Disposed

Kotla Madhusudhan v. The Chief General Manager

Telangana HC16 Dec 2011WP/33280/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of two writ petitions regarding recruitment for land losers quota by relying on a previous order dated 31.01.2011. The court directed the Corporation to examine applicants for 50% vacancies through a selection committee while observing suitability conditions.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to examine cases of applicants claiming recruitment against 50% land losers quota via the appropriate selection committee, following validity checks and suitability conditions.

Kotla Madhusudhan Vs The Chief General Manager — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

¶2

W.P.NOS.33280 AND 33300 OF 2011

¶3

COMMON ORDER

¶4

Heard both the counsel.

¶5

2. Since the issue involved in both these writ petition is one and the same, they are being disposed of by this common order.

¶6

3. The land of the petitioners in both the writ petitions was acquired by the State for public purpose and they were paid compensation. Apart from compensation, the State Government has announced additional benefits through G.O.Ms.No.98, Irrigation and Project Wring Department dated 15.4.1986 for providing jobs to the land displaced persons. The respondent – Corporation issued notification for the post of Junior Plant Attendant and the case of the petitioners is that their cases shall be considered for the said post in the light of G.O.Ms.No.98. Hence, the present writ petition.

¶7

4. In similar facts and circumstances, recording the representation of the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent – Corporation, this court in W.P.NOS.1529 and 1566 of 2011 dated 31.01.2011, passed the following order:

¶8

“Sri C. Raghu, learned Standing Counsel for the 1^st respondent Corporation has made it clear that the respondent Corporation is in no way deviating from the policy decision announced by the State Government referred to supra, when it comes to the question of filling up the 50% of the vacancies notified for the posts of Junior Plant Attendants.

¶9

Since the respondent Corporation agreed to abide by the policy decision taken by the State Government, as a rehabilitation mechanism of the land losers, suffice it, for the present, to direct the respondents to subject the cases of such of those applicants, who claimed recruitment against 50% land losers quota, to be examined by the appropriate selection committee of the district concerned and based upon the recommendations of the said selection committee, the follow up action of finalization of the selections be undertaken by the respondent Corporation, duly following and observing the other suitability conditions, such as possessing appropriate technical qualifications.

¶10

It is needless to observe that the officials of the respondent Corporation are entitled to raise their objections before the selection committee concerned at the time of selecting the displaced persons for appointment. Such objections are liable to be taken into account and consideration by the said committee. It is also open to the committee to scrutinize the qualifications, which are required for being employed with the respondent Corporation.

¶11

With this, the Writ Petitions are disposed of at the admission stage, leaving all other questions unanswered as they are not called for, for the present, to be answered. No costs.

¶12

5. The present writ petitions are also disposed of in terms of the above extracted portion of the order dated 31.01.2011 in W.P.Nos.1529 and 1566 of 2011. No order as to costs.

¶13

AVS ----------------------16—12—2011 Note: Issue C.C. by tomorrow. B/O

Kotla Madhusudhan v. The Chief General Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotla Madhusudhan v. The Chief General Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G.Gopal Rajaiah Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt. Yenduru Pydamma, Hindu, Female Vs M/s. Hindustan Shipyard Limited

Mudam Ramesh Vs The Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd.

D.v.v.Prasad, Vs The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

Samuel Morris Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary

P.Kanaka Rao, Vs The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C.