JUDGMENT DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA, J. - This Writ Appeal is filed questioning the order passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.1450 of 2015, dtd. 28/12/2022. 2. This Court has heard Sri M. Vidyasagar, learned counsel for the appellant; Sri G.V.Sivaji, learned counsel for the 1st respondent-writ petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services appearing for the 2nd respondent. 3. The parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the Writ Petition for the sake of convenience. 4. The facts are not in dispute in this case. The writ petitioner is an applicant for a job with the 1st respondent (Present appellant) under the category of land losers. Admittedly, the land, belonging to the petitioner's family, was acquired and the petitioner, therefore, made an application in terms of the relevant G.O.Ms.No.98. The petitioner appeared for the selection and his name figured at Sl.No.64. His candidature was not considered because he did not submit Non-Earning Member Certificate and there was mismatching of his father's name. Later, a clarification was issued by the Tahsildar about the writ petitioner's father name. The petitioner was invited for the next District Selection Committee Meeting and his name was included in the list as already objections were complied with. But by this date it was stated that there are no further vacancies and his name would be considered as and when vacancies arise. 5. Since his candidature was rejected the writ was filed and the same was allowed by the learned single Judge. Questioning the same, the 1st respondent filed the present Writ Appeal. 6. The matter was argued by Sri Vidyasagar and at the direction of this Court a typed list of persons employed under the land losers quota was filed. It is revealed that 88 persons were ultimately recruited under the land losers quota. Sri G.V.Shivaji, learned counsel for the writ petitioner-1st respondent argues that even though no fault was committed by the writ petitioner he was being penalized and despite the clarification issued and the documents submitted the case of the petitioner was not considered. He also points out that an earlier writ was filed and an order was passed on 28/12/2022 to consider the case of the petitioner, if he was otherwise qualified under the land losers quota. He also points out that an earlier writ was filed and an order was passed on 28/12/2022 to consider the case of the petitioner, if he was otherwise qualified under the land losers quota. He points out that despite the same the stand taken by the respondent is that there are no vacancies and therefore, the rejection of his case is wrongful. He points out that because of the interim order the respondents had a duty to keep the post vacant and also immediately to consider the case of the petitioner, instead of doing so they have rejected the petitioner's case. 7. He points out that the data reveals that many candidates joined in the jobs after the case of the petitioner was recommended by the District Selection Committee on 24/1/2014. 8. This Court has heard both the learned counsel. As stated earlier there is no serious dispute about the facts. The first meeting was conducted on 28/12/2012 and 89 members were found to be eligible under the land losers quota but an objection was raised with regard to the petitioner's eligibility as his father's name did not tally etc. 9. The documents filed reveal that on 17/7/2013 itself the District Collector had addressed a letter to the Chief Engineer, Rayalseema Thermal Power Project (who is the 3rd respondent in the writ and the 2nd appellant herein), that the petitioner's father name is actually L.Pedda Subba Reddy and that L. Subba Reddy and L. Pedda Subba Reddy are one and the same. Therefore, the essential objection raised by the appellant was addressed and clarified by this letter dtd. 17/7/2013 itself. 10. Thereafter, the District Selection Committee was scheduled to be held on 13/11/2013 for selection under the land losers quota. This was postponed and ultimately it was held on 24/1/2014. The letters filed along with the writ petition bear testimony to this. On 24/1/2014 the selection committee recommended the name of the writ petitioner. But as there were no vacancies for the Junior Plant Attendant (JPA) post his case was not considered. 11. At the direction of this Court, learned counsel for the appellant filed a list of people, who were appointed under the land looser quota. This was recorded in the order dtd. 7/7/2023 passed by this Court. Candidates at Serial Nos.82 to 88 joined in the period 27/1/2014 to 13/10/2014. 11. At the direction of this Court, learned counsel for the appellant filed a list of people, who were appointed under the land looser quota. This was recorded in the order dtd. 7/7/2023 passed by this Court. Candidates at Serial Nos.82 to 88 joined in the period 27/1/2014 to 13/10/2014. Appointment orders were issued to these candidates in the period 27/1/2014 to 9/10/2014. 12. As pointed out earlier the petitioner's case was recommended by the District Selection Committee held on 24/1/2014. This is admitted even in the counter filed. The seniority cum merit list was also sent on 10/2/2014 as per paragraph 8 of the counter. Even, thereafter, appointment orders were issued to 5 out of the 8 candidates who are mentioned in the list. Candidates at Sl.No.83, 84, 85, 86 and 88 were all issued appointment orders after 24/1/2014 / 10/2/2014. For the candidate at S.No.87 the appointment order date is not mentioned but it is clear that he has joined on 20/9/2014. 13. It is, therefore, clear that by July, 2013 itself the District Collector clarified about the name of the petitioner's father. The essential clarification was thus given. Thereafter, the DSC meeting was postponed till 24/1/2014. No fault can be attributed to the writ petitioner in this aspect as he was not responsible for the postponement. He appeared before the DSC on 24/1/2014 and he was considered to be eligible and the objections raised earlier were complied with. 14. Even thereafter it is clear from the date furnished at this Court's direction that seven people were appointed. Data relating to six out of seven people is there and is no information about one candidate by name G. Subbi Reddy at Sl.No.87, but his data of joining is 20/9/2014. All the six other candidates were issued appointment letters after 24/1/2014, (the date of the District Selection Committee meeting recommendations). In fact for two candidates viz., N. Surya Narayana Reddy and Y.Neela kanta Reddy appointment orders were issued on 20/9/2014 and in case of G. Pullaiah the appointment order was issued on 9/10/2014. 15. It is, therefore, crystal clear that the petitioner's case was wrongfully rejected and the petitioner is not at fault. The appellants by virtue of their own delay and fault cannot now state that there are no vacancies. This is a classic case of a helpless person, who has come to Court for aid. 15. It is, therefore, crystal clear that the petitioner's case was wrongfully rejected and the petitioner is not at fault. The appellants by virtue of their own delay and fault cannot now state that there are no vacancies. This is a classic case of a helpless person, who has come to Court for aid. He has lost his land and sources of livelihood and he is otherwise fully eligible for the post he applied for but he is not given appointment. 16. This Court, therefore, does not find any reason whatsoever to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge. If this Court does not come to the aid of the writ petitioner, this Court would be failing in its duty as a Constitutional Court. It has to help the helpless. 17. The Writ Appeal, is therefore, dismissed. Respondents-appellants are directed to take all necessary steps by securing necessary approvals etc., and if necessary created a supernumerary post to appoint the writ petitioner / 1st respondent in the post he has applied for. This order should be complied with within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. 18. Consequently, the Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall also stand dismissed.