Peeram Amaranath vs The State Of Ap
2023 Latest Caselaw 5282 AP

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE
                          &
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

                   WRIT APPEAL No.908 of 2023

Between:
Peeram Amaranath,
S/o. Yerraiah,
Aged about 45 years,
OCC: Agriculture Coolie,
R/o.H.No.10/213-4,Teachers Colony,
Poddutur, YSR Kadapa District & another.
                                                         ...Appellants
                                Versus

The State of Andhra Pradesh
Rep.by its Principal Secretary
Energy, Secretariat,
Amaravati, Guntur District & 4 others.                  ...Respondents


Counsel for the Appellants          : Sri V.V. Satish

Counsel for Respondent No.1         : Government Pleader for
                                    Energy

Counsel for Respondent No.2         : Government Pleader for
                                    Revenue

Counsel for Respondent Nos.3 to 5 : Sri M.Vidya Sagar, learned
                                  Standing Counsel for APGENCO


                              JUDGMENT

Dt: 03.11.2023 (per Hon'ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)

HCJ&RRR,J W.A. No.908 of 2023

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 29.02.2012. 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

HCJ&RRR,J W.A. No.908 of 2023

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 01.02.2018, 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, dated 15.04.1986. 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

HCJ&RRR,J W.A. No.908 of 2023

raised by the respondents in their counter and had disposed of the

Writ Petition on 14.03.2023 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 2 nd 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,

dated 15.04.1986 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.

HCJ&RRR,J W.A. No.908 of 2023

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, dated 15.04.1986.

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.

HCJ&RRR,J W.A. No.908 of 2023

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, dated 15.04.1986 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

dated 14.03.2023 and accordingly, this Writ Appeal is dismissed.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand

closed.

DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J

BSM

HCJ&RRR,J W.A. No.908 of 2023

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

WRIT APPEAL No.908 of 2023

(per Hon'ble Sri Justice R.Raghunandan Rao)

Dt: 03.11.2023

BSM