Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1431 (AP)

Peeram Amaranath v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2023-11-03

DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO

body2023
JUDGMENT R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J. - Heard, Sri V.V. Satish, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri M. Vidya Sagar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 3 to 5. 2. The land admeasuring Ac. 1.12 cents in Sy. No. 246 of Kalamalla Village, Yerraguntla Mandal, Kadapa District belonging to the 1st appellant, was acquired by the Government and an award to that effect was also passed on 29/2/2012. This land was acquired for the purpose of establishing a thermal plant known as the Rayalaseema Thermal Power Plant, Stage IV (1 x 600 MW). Apart from the compensation under the award, the land losers, affected by the acquisition of their land for the above purposes, were also promised certain additional benefits including the application of G.O.Ms.No.98, Irrigation (Project Wing) Department. G.O.Ms.No.98 provided for land losers, whose lands were acquired for Irrigation Projects, or their dependents to be granted employment to the extent of 50% vacancies of the categories equivalent to Junior Assistant/Typist and cadres below the said posts. This said G.O. also provided that reservation for various reserved categories would also be applicable. 3. In pursuance of aforesaid assurances, the Andhra Pradesh GENCO issued a notification for recruitment of 177 Junior Plant Attendant posts and earmarked 88 posts, which would amount to 50% of the posts notified, for land losers. Subsequently, 88 of these posts were filled up by land losers. This recruitment process was undertaken in the year 2011. 4. In the year 2018, the stage-IV unit, for which the land of the 1st appellant had been acquired, commenced commercial operations. On 1/2/2018, the 1st appellant gave a representation that his son, who is 2nd appellant herein, had passed ITI (Electrical) and would be eligible for the post of Junior Plant Attendant and requested that employment be provided to the 2nd appellant instead of him. 5. The appellants moved this Court by way of Writ Petition No. 24319 of 2018 contending that there were 264 posts of Junior Plant Attendants which remain vacant in the Rayalaseema Thermal Plant and a direction should be issued to M/s. Andhra Pradesh GENCO to recruit the land losers against these vacant posts, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.98, dtd. 15/4/1986. 5. The appellants moved this Court by way of Writ Petition No. 24319 of 2018 contending that there were 264 posts of Junior Plant Attendants which remain vacant in the Rayalaseema Thermal Plant and a direction should be issued to M/s. Andhra Pradesh GENCO to recruit the land losers against these vacant posts, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.98, dtd. 15/4/1986. The 2nd appellant also took the plea that he would be at Sl.No.39 in the list of eligible persons for being appointed as Junior Plant Attendant and would consequently, gain employment as at least 132 posts would have to be reserved for land losers, out of the 264 vacant posts. 6. The Learned Single Judge of this Court after considering the said submissions of the appellants as well as the objections raised by the respondents in their counter and had disposed of the Writ Petition on 14/3/2023 in the following manner:- "Keeping in view the guidelines in the G.O.Ms.No.98, respondents' authorities shall consider the case of the 2nd petitioner since the 1st petitioner addressed letter to the authorities to delete his name and include the name of 2nd petitioner in his place. Respondent authorities shall complete the exercise, as per their need, as early possible.'' 7. Aggrieved by the said Judgment, the appellants had filed the present Writ Appeal. 8. Sri V.V. Satish, learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the learned Single Judge, having held that the appellants are entitled to the benefits of the G.O.Ms.No.98, dtd. 15/4/1986 ought to have issued a positive direction to the respondents to fill up the vacant posts. He would further contend that the Learned Single Judge could not have left it to the discretion of the respondents for determining whether the 2nd appellant could be given employment or not. 9. Sri V.V. Satish, learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the 1st appellant had handed over his land and had given his consent for passing of an award solely on account of the prospect of obtaining employment in the Thermal Plant and as such, the right of the appellants to obtain such employment cannot be violated on the ground of commercial expediency claimed by the respondents. 10. Sri M. Vidya Sagar, learned Counsel appearing for contesting respondents fairly concedes that the 2nd appellant would be entitled to the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.98, dtd. 15/4/1986. 10. Sri M. Vidya Sagar, learned Counsel appearing for contesting respondents fairly concedes that the 2nd appellant would be entitled to the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.98, dtd. 15/4/1986. However, he contends that in view of the advances in technology, M/s. Andhra Pradesh GENCO had stopped further recruitment of Junior Plant Attendants, after the initial recruitments. He would submit that the only assurance given by the contesting respondents was that 50% of the jobs would be reserved for land losers, whenever recruitment takes place. He would submit that there was no assurance that all land losers would be given a job, irrespective of whether such jobs are required or not. 11. Sri M. Vidya Sagar, learned Counsel appearing for the contesting respondents, submits that the power plant would have to be run on commercial lines as failure to do so would result in losses to the extent of shutting down the Thermal Plant itself. He would further contend that while judicial review of the decisions of Andhra Pradesh GENCO cannot be disputed, the same would be subject to the condition of allowing a free play of the joints, in Financial and Economical matters. He would submit that there has been no recruitment of any Junior Plant Attendant since-2011 and the case of the appellants would be considered in the event of any future notification being given. 12. The learned Single Judge considered similar contentions raised by either side and had held that in such circumstances, the case of the appellants should be considered, whenever any recruitment is done. 13. A perusal of G.O.Ms.No.98, dtd. 15/4/1986 as well as the communications between the respondents and land losers, set out before this Court would show that the respondents had only assured the land losers that 50% of the posts, under the appropriate categories, would be reserved for the land losers and they would be given employment as and when recruitment for the these posts is held. 14. In such circumstances, we do not find any ground to interfere with the order of the Learned Single Judge of this Court dtd. 14/3/2023 and accordingly, this Writ Appeal is dismissed. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.