Telangana High Court
Thippani Shankaraiah vs The Revenue Divisional Officer, on 7 January, 2025
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No. 34442 OF 2015
O R D E R:
Petitioner seeks a declaration that he is entitled to
be appointed as a Junior Mazdoor in the 4th respondent -
National Thermal Power Corporation Limited (NTPCL) under the
'land oustee' quota, setting aside the Memo No. B/3757/2014-5
dated 07-07-2015 issued by the 1st respondent - Revenue
Divisional Officer.
2. Petitioner claims to be the second son of
Sri Thippani Mallaiah, a land oustee, whose land measuring
Acs.4.15 guntas in Survey No. 58/AA, Lingapuram Village was
acquired for the purposes of the 4th respondent Corporation
under Award No. 13/15/80; the name of his elder brother,
Thippani Pochetti was included in the list of nominees under
the land oustee quota and was further included in the panel for
appointment as Mazdoor/Attendant. However, the said Pochetti
met with a fatal accident on 15-04-1994 at 09:55 AM while
working as a contract labourer at RSTPS plant site, hence, his
case was not considered on the ground of medical unfitness.
Following the accident, the Corporation, through
proceedings dated 15-09-1994 informed petitioner's father that
no recruitment of Attendants/Mazdoors was being conducted at
that time, however, assured that when recruitment under land
oustees quota for general category (excluding SC/ST/PHC) was
initiated, preference would be given to petitioner, provided he
attains 18 years and his father was instructed to submit an
appropriate nomination in favor of petitioner, certified by the 1st
respondent. Despite fulfilling these requirements and making
written representations to respondents, petitioner's candidature
was not considered. Subsequently, petitioner and his family
requested the 4th respondent to incorporate his name in the
land oustee list to facilitate his employment, however, the 1st
respondent rejected this request through the impugned Memo
dated 07-07-2015, citing that change of nomination was not
permissible and that petitioner was ineligible for obtaining a
land oustee certificate.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner Sri D. Linga Rao
submits that Corporation's insistence on a land oustee
certificate and refusal to allow a change of nomination are
unjust and it deprives petitioner of employment, violating the
purpose of the government policy to provide employment to
displaced persons. He asserts that acquisition of land and the
assurances given on 15-09-1994 are undisputed facts. He
highlights that no member of petitioner's family has been
provided employment despite acquisition of their land, contrary
to the stated objectives of the scheme. Learned counsel refers to
judgment in Writ Petition No. 27319 of 2013 where this Court
directed authorities to permit changes in nominees and accord
employment to eligible candidates. The petitioner submits that
the facts of the present case are identical and requests the court
to extend similar benefits.
4. This Court, while issuing rule nisi, on 14.10.2015,
directed respondents to consider the claim of petitioner
notwithstanding the impugned memo and pass appropriate
orders within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the
said order.
5. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of
Respondents 4 and 5, it is stated that issuance of land oustee
certificates and approval or change of nomination of eligible
land oustees is the responsibility of the State Revenue
authorities and they have no role in these matters. It is stated
that letter dated 15.09.1994 was issued to Sri Thippani
Mallaiah, father of petitioner clarifying that recruitment was not
ongoing at the time and that if recruitment for general category
(excluding SC/ST/PHC) under the land oustees quota was
initiated in future, petitioner's name would be given preference,
provided he completed 18 years of age and submitted
appropriate nomination certified by the Revenue Divisional
Officer (RDO), Peddapalli. The respondent company emphasizes
that petitioner failed to ensure submission of his name as an
approved nominee by the District Revenue authorities, which
was a prerequisite for consideration. It is contended by learned
counsel Sri Subrahmanya Narusu that respondent company
conducted recruitment for Attendant/Mazdoor posts exclusively
for land oustees in 2013 and 2015, however, petitioner's name
was not included in the approved list as they lack authority to
approve or alter nominations. Pursuant to the interim order, it
is contended, petitioner's case was considered on merits, and
vide letter dated 20.11.2015, it was informed that he did not
fulfill the primary eligibility criteria as his name was not in the
approved land oustees list. The respondent company further
stated that no employment notification for land oustees is
currently in force. It is argued finally that Writ Petition is devoid
of merit and should be dismissed.
6. Having perused the material on record and having
heard learned counsel on either side, it is evident that
petitioner's father's land was acquired by the 4th respondent
corporation under Award No. 13/15/80; petitioner's elder
brother, Thippani Pochetti, was initially nominated under the
land oustee quota but was not appointed due to medical
unfitness. Thereafter, the 4th respondent Corporation issued
communication dated 15.09.1994 assuring preference to
petitioner in future recruitment, subject to compliance with
eligibility requirements, as the 4th respondent corporation is
bound by the list provided by the District Collector and cannot
independently alter nominations or include unapproved
candidates. Subsequently, the 1st respondent vide memo
impugned stated that petitioner after a lapse of 26 years is
requesting to change his name as nominee, as the instructions
contained in the Government Memo dated 03.07.1990 stipulates
that it is not desirable to provide for change of nominee of land
oustee after one year from the date of approval of original
nomination. In the instant case, the original nominee late Shri
Tippani Pochetti was selected in the panel of land oustees for
appointment as Attendant / Mazdoor, initially, however, he
could not be appointed as he was found medically unfit on
account of his involvement in an accident on 15.04.1994 and
petitioner is indeed the surviving son of the land oustee and the
assurances given in the letter dated 15-09-1994 by the 1st
respondent Corporation is clear and unequivocal. He was
assured that upon reaching the age of 18, his candidature
would be considered for employment under the land oustee
quota. Despite fulfilling the said condition, his name was not
included in the list of eligible candidates, and the request for a
change of nomination was unjustly rejected. It is evident from
the above communicatin that immediately after the original
nominee met with an accident and declared unfit for
employment, the 4th respondent Corporation assured the land
oustee that his second son i.e. petitioner's case would be
considered for employment, however, subject to condition of
producing appropriate nomination in his favour duly certified by
Revenue Divisional Officer, Peddapalli. Therefore, petitioner
submitted representation dated 20.06.2015 stating that at the
time of death of his brother, he was only 14 years and since his
father was an uneducated, he requested to enter his name in
the place of his brother. In view of the same, this Court is of the
opinion that Corporation's refusal to consider petitioner's
candidature based on technicalities such as production of land
oustee certificate and change of nomination is unreasonable,
particularly when petitioner is the only surviving son of land
oustee and for the reasons stated in the representation dated
20.06.2015.
7. The purpose of the land oustee scheme is to provide
employment to those displaced by land acquisition and
petitioner being the surviving son of land oustee, is entitled to
the benefits of this scheme. In view of the admitted fact that
petitioner's father's land was acquired by the 4th respondent and
since no family member was given appointment under the
Scheme, it is directed that petitioner shall submit Application to
the 1st respondent to change nomination in his favour in two
weeks' time and on such Application, the 1st respondent shall
change nomination in favour of petitioner, keeping in view the
interim order dated 14.10.2015 as also the very purport of the
Scheme, within two weeks thereafter. On submission of
nomination certificate, the 4th respondent shall consider the
case of petitioner on humanitarian grounds and provide suitable
employment, as per his eligibility / qualifications, forthwith. It
is made clear that this order shall not be a precedent in future.
8. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No
costs.
9. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if
any shall stand closed.
-------------------------------------
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J
07th January 2025
ksld
