Mobile View
Main Search Forums Advanced Search Disclaimer
User Queries
Andhra High Court
Sri S.K. Nazar vs Counsel For The Appellants: ...

WRIT APPEAL No. 1387 of 2011

02.02.2012

The Chief Engineer,APGENCO, KTPS, Paloncha, Khammam District and two others

Sri S.K. Nazar

Counsel for the Appellants: C.Raghu

Counsel for the Respondent: G.V. Shivaji

JUDGMENT: (per the Hon'ble Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah)

Heard both the counsel.

2. This writ appeal is filed by the A.P. GENCO aggrieved by the order dated 05.03.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge disposing of the Writ Petition No. 2993 of 2002 filed by the respondent herein directing the appellants herein to consider the case of the respondent along with other eligible candidates as per the orders of the Government in GO Ms. No. 98 Irrigation (Project Wing) Department dated 15.04.1986 considering him as a member of the displaced family though he is the grandson of the land loser.

3. The respondent herein filed the above writ petition for providing employment under the land loser category for acquisition of land to an extent of Ac.8.10 guntas in Sy.No. 727/98 situated at Paloncha, Khammam District. It is the contention of the respondent herein before the learned Single Judge that he is an unemployee hailing from a poor displaced family, as the land of his grandfather was acquired by the appellants for the purpose of establishment of KTPS Paloncha, Khammam District. It is stated that as per the scheme, a member of the displaced family is entitled to be considered for the employment. His father made representation dated 30.08.1978 requesting to provide employment in KTPS, but since the said representation was not considered and since his father became old, the respondent made a fresh representation on 08.01.2002 enclosing the certificate issued by the Revenue Authorities about the acquisition of the land of his grandfather. As per G.O. Ms. No. 98 dated 15.04.1986, the dependants of the displaced land loser are entitled for rehabilitation by providing employment but the benefit of the said GO was not extended to the petitioner and, therefore, the action of the appellants herein is illegal and discriminatory.

4. A counter was filed by the appellants herein in the writ petition stating that as per the certificate issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kothagudem, vide letter L.Dis.D/734/73 dated 19.04.1973, an award dated 18.12.1963 was passed with regard to the acquisition of the land to an extent of Ac.8.10 guntas for construction of KTPS project and the said land was the joint patta of Sri Billa Narasaiah and Babu Saheb in Sy.No. 727 of 1998. The writ petitioner is the grandson of Sk. Babu Saheb, the land loser. The son of the land loser i.e. father of the respondent herein namely Jamal Saheb was called for the interview on 24.06.1980 with all the original certificates to assess the correctness of the claim and the said Jamal Saheb has not produced any original certificate. It is stated that as per the certificate issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, the acquired land of Ac.8.10 guntas was joint patta of Billa Narasaiah and Babu Saheb and, therefore, it was not correct to state that either father of the petitioner i.e. son of the land loser or the petitioner is the exclusive owner of the land, but the grandfather of the petitioner was joint patta holder of the acquired land. Thereafter, the respondent herein made representation dated 11.01.2002 to provide him job under the dependants of the land loser scheme, even though he is the grandson of the land loser.

5. In the counter, it is stated that as the petitioner is not entitled to be considered for employment as per the guidelines issued in GO Ms. No. 98 dated 15.04.2006, his representation was negatived vide letter No.122/02 dated 23.01.2002. G.O.Ms.No. 98 dated 15.4.2006 provides employment to the land loser or his/her son, daughter or spouse alone. The respondent being the grandson of the land loser, as per his own application, he is not entitled for any employment in terms of the said G.O. In fact, the son of the land loser Mr. Jamal Saheb, who is father of the writ petition, was interviewed on 26.04.1980 along with other displaced land losers and better qualified and experienced persons were selected for employment vide orders dated 13.11.1987. It is further stated that in fact the other joint land loser namely Billa Narasaiah was provided employment in consonance of the G.O. Ms. No. 98 dated 15.04.2006 and, therefore, the grandson of the land loser is not entitled for the employment and, as such, his representation dated 7.01.2002 was rejected and without questioning the said order dated 23.01.2002, the writ petition was filed seeking to provide employment under the land losers category pursuant to GO Ms. No.98 dated 15.04.2006.

6. Learned Single Judge while considering the orders of the Government in GO Ms. No. 98 dated 15.04.1986, enlarged the benefit of providing the employment to grandson also, though the G.O. provides for consideration of the cases for employment of displaced person, his dependants namely son, daughter or spouse alone.

7. Aggrieved by the same, the writ appeal is filed.

8. The Government while considering representation of the displaced persons evolved the scheme of providing employment to the displaced person, his dependants namely son, daughter or spouse alone and accordingly issued GO Ms. No. 98 dated 15.4.1986. Clauses 4(i) and (ii) of the said G.O. are relevant for the purpose of adjudication of the controversy involved, which read as under:

4. After careful examination and consideration, the following orders are issued in supersession of orders in GO Ms. No.676 Irrigation & Power Department dated 17.11.1978.

(i) Not more than 50% of the vacancies of the categories equivalent to Junior Assistants/Typists and the cadres below arising in major and medium irrigation and power projects shall be filled up by the displaced families/or their dependants of a respective projects duly following the reservation for various categories viz., SC, ST, BC, Ex-Servicemen, Physically Handicapped and Meritorious Sportsmen, etc.

(ii) The candidates eligible for appointment under this scheme shall be the displaced persons or his/her son, daughter or spouse, there being no other earning member in the family.

9. Clause (i) above provides for filling up 50% of the vacancies in the categories equivalent to Junior Assistants/Typists and the cadres below arising in major and medium irrigation and power projects, to be filled by the displaced persons or their dependants in the respective projects duly following the reservation for various categories like Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes, Ex-Servicemen, Physically Handicapped and Meritorious Sportsmen, etc. Clause (ii) above speaks of eligibility criteria prescribed for the appointment under the scheme, to be a displaced person, his/her son, daughter or spouse and there being no earning member in the family. Clause 4(i) deals with the percentage of vacancies to be filled by the displaced persons or dependants after following the rule of reservation. Therefore, we are of the opinion that clause 4(i) relates to filling up of 50% vacancies by the displaced families or their dependants while clause 4(ii) relates to the eligibility criteria for such appointments by the displaced persons or his/her son/daughter or spouse alone, if there being no other earning member in the family. The grandson cannot be called as a dependant of the grandfather/land loser whose land was acquired. The dependant of a land loser is only his/her spouse, son and daughter, if they continue to be non-earning member of the family. If the grandsons are also considered as eligible for appointment then there will not be an end to draw a line, as the great grandsons may also seek employment under the reserved 50% vacancies for the displaced families in the respective projects. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the respondent is not entitled to be considered for the appointment under GO Ms. No. 98 dated 15.04.2006. Consequently, the order dated 05.03.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP NO. 2993 of 2002 is set aside and the writ appeal is accordingly allowed and the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs.

___________________

Justice V.Eswaraiah

________________

Justice K.G.Shankar