J. Srinivas v. The State Of Telangana,

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI W.P.No.47863 OF 2018

ORDER

This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: "...to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents while considering the 3rd respondent letter dt. 10-10-2017 to appoint as Technical Assistant higher than the pay scale of Junior Assistant in R.P.S.2015 onwards, appointment under 50% displaced persons quota in Sriram Sagar Project and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case." Heard Sri D.L.Pandu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-II appearing for the respondents.

It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents have acquired the lands of the petitioners and their family members for undertaking irrigation projects and the State Government has taken a policy decision vide G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 15.4.1986, wherein it had decided to consider the cases of the land losers for providing employment.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that the cases of the petitioners were considered for employment on outsourcing basis; that though the petitioners are fully qualified and eligible to be appointed as Technical Assistants, the respondents are not considering their cases for

appointment on regular basis in terms of G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 15.4.1986; that the 3rd respondent had submitted proposals to the 1st respondent on 10-10-2017 recommending the cases of the petitioners, but so far, no orders have been passed thereon; and that appropriate orders be passed directing the 1st respondent to consider the proposals submitted by the 3rd respondent for considering the cases of the petitioners for regular employment as Technical Assistants.

Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that the land of the petitioners and their family members were acquired for various irrigation projects; that the cases of the petitioners were considered in terms of G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 15.4.1986 and they are being provided employment on outsourcing basis; and that it is for the 1st respondent to take a decision on the proposals submitted by the 3rd respondent.

Having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, this Court is of the view that the since the proposals submitted by the 3rd respondent are pending with the 1st respondent, ends of justice would be met if a direction is given to the 1st respondent to consider the proposals submitted by the 3rd respondent.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider the proposals submitted by the 3rd respondent and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

________________________________ JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI 3rd January, 2019 rkk