B. Linga Rao v. The Telangana State Power Generation Corporation Limited (Tsgenco) And 4 Others

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTI CE ABHI NAND KUMAR SHAVI LI W RI T PETI TI ON No.1 3 2 7 2 of 2 0 1 9 ORDER:

This writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage with the consent of both the parties.

2.

The writ petition is filed with the following prayer: "... the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the Respondents in not appointing the Petitioner to the post of Junior Plant Attendant (JPA) under land losers quota in spite of the recommendations of District Selection Committee as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 16 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents to appoint the Petitioner to the post of Junior Plant Attendant (JPA) under displaced persons quota as per the recommendations of District Selection Committee and as per the assurance given, forthwith, with all service and monetary benefits and to pass ..."

3.

Heard Mr. P. Amarender, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. A. Deepthi, learned standing counsel for the respondent No.2. 4.

Petitioner contends that the respondents have acquired the land of the petitioner for construction of Kakatiya Thermal Power Project during 2006 and the respondents have given an assurance to the petitioner, at the time of acquiring the land, that one of the family members would be provided permanent employment under the displaced persons quota. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an application seeking employment in tune with the policy of the respondents for appointment under the displaced persons quota within the stipulated time. Petitioner further submits that though the District Selection Committee has recommended the case of the petitioner vide proceedings dated 07.01.2014, the respondents have not considered his case.

5.

Therefore, the counsel for the petitioner would submit that appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment under the displaced persons quota by duly taking into account the recommendation made by the District Selection Committee on 07.01.2014 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 6.

Learned standing counsel submits that as per the policy of the respondents 50% of the direct recruitment vacancies are earmarked for displaced persons and whenever recruitment notification is issued, the case of the petitioner would be considered against the 50% vacancies in tune with the policy of the respondents. Learned standing counsel further submits that if the petitioner submits a representation, the respondents would consider and pass appropriate orders on such representation by duly taking into account the recommendation of the District Selection Committee.

7.

This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by both parties, is of the considered view that the writ petition can be disposed of by permitting the petitioner to submit a fresh representation within two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and upon such representation, being made by the petitioner, the respondents shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and also by duly taking into account the recommendation made by the District Selection Committee within a period of two (2) months thereafter. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. Pending miscellaneous petitions shall also stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J July 2, 2019/ DSK