High Court · 2025

Judgment

4. 5 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Peddapally, Karimnagar District. The District Collector, Karimnagar, Karimnagar District., - The District Employment Officer, Ramagundam, Karimn'agar District. National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC) Ltd., Ramagundam, Karimnagar rep. by its General Manager. The General Manager, Human Resources, NTPC, Ramagundam, Karimnagar District. ...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to lssue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, by declaring that the petitioner is entitled to be appointed as Mazdoor/Atendant or any other suitable post in the '1't respondent Corporation with all consequential benefits under the land oustees quota by holding the action of the 4th respondent in rejecting petitioners request for change of nomination and issuance of land oustee certificate vide impugned Memo No. Btg757l2o14-5 dated 7-72015 and that of the 4th and 3'd respondents in insisting for change of nomination after expressing willingness for providing employment to the petitioner as being arbitrary, illegal, unjust discriminatory and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of lndia. l.A. NO:'t O F 201s(WPM P. NO: 214267 OF 201s) Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment as Mazdoor/Atendant under the rand oustee quota with reference to the impugned Memo No. Bl3757l2O14-S dated 7-7_2015 issued by the 1st respondent. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI D. LINGA RAO Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2: Gp FOR REVENUE counsel for the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5: sRr K.v. SUBRAHMANYA NARUSU The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAI{A WRIT PETITION No.3 4442 0F 201s o RDER: 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-l3757 l2OL4-5 respondent - Revenue dated 07-07-2015 issued by the l"t Divisional Officer. Petitioner claims to be the second son of 2. 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' thc said Pochetti met with a fatal accident on 15-O4-1994 at O9:55 AM while working as a contract labourer at RSTPS plant site' hence' his case was not considered on the ground of medical unfitness' Followrng the accident' the Corporation' through proceedings dated 15-09- 1994 informed petitioner's father that norecruitmentofAttendants/Mazdoorswasbeingconductcda[ \ 2 that time, however, zrssured that when recruitment under land oustees quoLa for generai category (excluding SC/ST/PHC) was initiated, prelerence would be given to petitioner, provided he attains 18 years and his lather was instructed to submit an appropriatc nomination in favor of petitioner, certihed by the 1"t rcspondent. Despite fulfilling these requirements and making r,r'ri tten rep re sen tation s to respondents, petitioner's candidature was not considered. Subsequently, petitioner and his family rcquested the 4rh respondent to incorporate his name in. the land oustee list to facilitate his employment, however, the l"t respondent rejected this request through the impugned Memo dirted 07 07 -2015, citing that change of nomination was not pcrmissible and that petitioner was ineligible for obtaining a la nd oustee certil'icate'.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner Sri D. Linga Rao submits that Corporation's insistence on a land oustee certihcatc :rnd rcfusal 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 displaccd pcrsons. Hc asserts that acquisition of land and the assuranccs given on 15-09-1994 are undisputed [acts. He highlights that no member of petitioner's family has been provided t'mplovmcnt despite acquisition of their land, contrary to t[y'statccl oblcctives of the scheme. Learned counsel refers to /" J judgment in Writ Petition No. 27319 of 2Ol3 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. 10.2O 15, 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 hled 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.O9.1994 was issued to Sri Thippani Mallaiah, father of petitioner clarif ing 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 Ofhcer (RDO), Peddapalli. The respondent company emphasizes 4 that petitioner failed to ensure submission of his name as an approved nomince 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 lor Attendant /Mazdoot posts exclusively for land oustees in 20 13 and 20 15, however, petitioner's name was not included in the approved iist 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 uide letter dated 2O. 1 1.20 15, it was informed that he did not fulfrll the primarl' eligibiliry criteria as his name was not in the approved land oustees list. The respondent company further stated that no empktvment notification for land oustees is currently in forcc. It is argued hnally that Writ Petition is devoid of merit and should be dismrssed.

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 4ft respondent corporation under Au'ard No. 13/ 15/80; petitioner's elder brother, Thippani Pochetti, was initially nominated under the land oustce quota but was not appointed due to medical unhtness. Thercafter, the 4e respondent Corporation issued communic:rtion datcd 15.09.1994 assuring preference to t ttt'' ) petitioner in future recruitment, subject to compliance with eligibility requirements, as the 4h respondent corporation is bound by the list provided by the District Collector and cannot independently alter nominations or include unapproved candidates. Subsequently, the 1"t respondent uide 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 I 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 lst 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 6 nominee met with an accident and declared unfit for employment, the 4& respondent Corporation assured the land oustee that his second son i.e. petitioner's case would be considered for employmen t, however, subject to condition of producing appropriate nomination in his favour duly certihed by Revenue Divrsional Officer, Peddapalli. Therefore, petitioner submitted represt:ntation 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 considet petitioner's candidature based on technicalities such as production of land oustee certificate and change of nomination is unreasonable, particularly $.hen petitioner is the only surviving son of land oustee and for the reasons stated in the representation dated

20.06.20rs. 7 . The ptrrposc 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 lancl u,as acquired by the 4trr respondent and since no family member was given appointment under the Scheme, it is directed ttrat petitioner shall submit Application to 7 the 1'r respondent to change nomination in his favour in two weeks' time and on such Application, the 1't respondent shall change nomination in favour of petitioner, keeping in view the interim order dated 14.1O.2O15 as also the very purport of the Scheme, within two weeks thereafter' On submission of nomination certificate, the 4t' respondent shall consider the case of petitioner on humanitarian grounds and provide suitable employment, as per his eligibitity / qualifications' forthwith lt is made ciear that this order shall not be a precedent in future' 8 costs. 9 The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly' No Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications' if any shall stand closqd /TTRUE COPY'/ BABU SD/. L. LAKSH ASSISTAN TRE isrmc SECTION OFFICER To i il1Efpii$d#ilLT:f,''+ffi#sro*$lt"-"'','iI,,, re aneana a'i 'r l Hf,":t#s1,*#1T:itl":i"'"ffi TJ BSR Flr I HIGH COURT DATED:0710112025 ORDER WP.No.34442 of 20'15 1Ht .i T4 ) c k U 21i83 2025 ( ) DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ,r-'"fnA &"'