V.Shruthi vs The Superintending ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 4573 Tel

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
                 WRIT PETITION No.9143 of 2021
ORDER:

This writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage

with the consent of both parties.

2. This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

"...to issue a writ or order, more particularly Writ of Mandamus declare that 1st petitioner is entitled for providing employment to any suitable post viz., Junior Assistant/Office Subordinate/Work Inspectors/ Technical Assts/Lascar etc., in existing vacancies or arising vacancies in G.O.Ms.No.45 dt.28.12.2020 in terms of G.O.Ms.No.98 dt.15.04.1986 by substituting 1st petitioner's name at Sl.No.81 in 2nd petitioner's place in File No.B1/376/87 dt.28.03.1990 as was done to similarly placed persons vide Memo No.7560/LA/R&R/A2/2017 dt.04.07.2019 by holding the action of the respondents in not providing employment to the 2nd petitioner though empanelled in 695 candidates list prepared during the year 1990-1994 while preparing only 393 candidates list on 25.03.2008 though he is fully eligible and qualified at the time of inclusion in the list while including similarly placed persons by replacing in the name of father or husband as per above stated memo dt.04.07.2019 is clearly illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, unjust and contrary to the judgments in O.S.No.8208/2003 and batch dt.06.05.2004, O.A.No.7917/2012, dt.16.7.2007, W.P.No.2346/2011 dt.08.02.2011 Apex Court judgment in S.L.P.No.14305/2011 dt.04.07.2011 etc., that application not made within one year and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, just and proper in the circumstances of the case."

3. Heard Sri M. Ram Gopal Rao, counsel for the petitioners, and

AKS,J W.P.No.9143_2021

the Government Pleader for Services-II appearing for the respondents.

4. It has been contended by the petitioners that the lands of their

family members were acquired by the respondents for irrigation

Projects and that the State Government has taken a policy decision

vide G.O.Ms.No.98 dated 15.04.1986, wherein the State Government

has decided to provide employment to the displaced persons or their

dependents.

5. Counsel for the petitioners contended that the name of the 2nd

petitioner was included in the list of eligible candidates for providing

employment in terms of G.O.Ms.No.98 dated 15.04.1986 and the 2nd

petitioner is none other than the father of the 1st petitioner. Counsel

further contended that since the 2nd petitioner has become over aged,

the 1st petitioner has submitted an application seeking employment in

terms of G.O.Ms.No.98 dated 15.04.1986. Counsel further contended

that when some beneficiaries, who have become over aged, submitted

representations to the State Government to provide employment to

their sons/daughters, the State Government was pleased to issue memo

dated 04.07.2019 permitting to replace the over aged displaced

persons with their younger family members, and that the case of the

petitioners stands on same footing. Counsel further submitted that the

petitioners submitted detailed representations to the 4th respondent on

28.01.2013 and 18.12.2021 requesting the 4th respondent to consider

the case of the 1st petitioner as replacement to the 2nd petitioner in the

list of beneficiaries and also to consider the case of the 1st petitioner

AKS,J W.P.No.9143_2021

for providing employment in any suitable post in terms of

G.O.Ms.No.98 dated 15.04.1986, but so far the 4th respondent has not

passed any orders on the said representations.

6. Therefore, counsel for the petitioners contended that appropriate

orders be passed in this writ petition directing the 4th respondent to

consider the representations submitted by the petitioners on

28.01.2013 and 18.12.2021 and pass appropriate orders in accordance

with law.

7. Government Pleader appearing for the respondents had

contended that since the representations submitted by the petitioners

are pending with the 4th respondent, the 4th respondent shall consider

the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

8. This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by

learned counsel for respective parties, is of the considered view that

this writ petition can be disposed of directing the 4th respondent to

consider the representations submitted by the petitioners on

28.01.2013 and 18.12.2021 and pass appropriate orders, in accordance

with law, within a reasonable period of time, preferably within eight

(8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

9. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No

order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

______________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J 23.12.2021 vv