Mohammed.Fayaz_udd_in v. consequently direct the

Judgment

4. The Telanggana Power Generation Corporation Ltd, Rep by its Managing Director Vidyut Soudha, Khairatabad, Hyderabad The t\4angging Director, Telangana Power Generation Corporation Ltd Vidyut Soudha. Khairatabad, Hyderabad The Chief..Engineer, .Kakatee)g Thermat Power project (KTpp) Chelpur, Bhuqalapalli Mandal, Warangal District The District Collector, Jayashankar Bhoopalapally 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 issue writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the Memo 0810312021 issued by the 4th respondent as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and unreasonable and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for providing employment in the establishment of the 1"t respondent under land looser quota immediately and appoint him as such with all consequential benefits in the interest of justice ' '3r.*trr''-. rm)"-*l ''.-:ryn:i li ratatt :ii IANO:1OF 2021 Petitionunderl)ectionl5lCPCprayingthatinthecircurnstancesstated intheaffidavitfiledinSupportofthepetition,theHighCoudmayl.repleasedto Suspendtheopelratio-rofthelvlemodated08/03/2o2l.andconsequentlydirect the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for providinl: employment in the establishment crf the 1 st respondent under land looser quot;i immediately in the interest of lustice pending disposal of the above writ petitior IA NO: 10F 2023

Petitionunderjection,l5,lCPCprayingthatinthecircumsitancesstated in the affidavit filed ir support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to permit me to filer the additional documents along with this IA in lhe interest of justice Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. D' RAMAKRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1&2: SRI SRINIVASA SRIKANTI-I' SC Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 3&4: GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: ORDER .,.// HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITI ON No-1 o85 0F 202L ORDER: Heard Sri D.Ramakrishna, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/ Sri Srinivasa Srikanth, learned standing counset appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 & 2 and learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing on behatf of the respondent Nos.3 & 4.

2. The Detitioner a DDroache thec urt seekino Draver as under: "...to issue writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declarinq the Memo 08.03.2021 issued by the 4th responden[ as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and unreasonable and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for providing employment in the establishment of the 1't respondenl under land looser quota immediately and appoint him as such with all consequential benefits in the interest of justice and to pass..."

3. It is specific case of the petitioner that the petitioner and his famity are eking out the riverihood through the curtivation oF the land in Sy.No.1106 situated at Chelpur Village, Mulugu Tq., Warangal district which is owned by Khaja Sharfuddin, who is the grandfather of the petitioner herein. The above said land was -Tl 2 SN, J acquisitioned ry the APGENCO for the purpose of est.ablishing KTPS, conseo uently the family of the petitioner lost the livelihood It i:; further the case of the petitioner that lhe policy of the governnrent is to provide benefit of the ernploymr,rnt to the land ousters when the land acquisition is made for the purpose of Government projects. The petitioner made representatif,n to the respondents for availing the benefit of employment of)portunity but the saic representation was not considereC by the respondents, -esultantly, on an earlier occasicln the ;retitioner approached this Hon'ble court seeking directions to the respondents to conslder the petitioner's representation and this court was pleased to pass the orders as prayed for there under. However, the respondents rejected the representatic,n of the petitioner vider impugned memo, dated 08.03.202L ctf the 4th respondent on the ground that the petitioner is the grardchild of the land owner as such the petitioner is not entitled for getting the employm€nt in terms oF G.O.Ms.No.98. Aggrievel by the impugned me mo/ the petitioner preferred the pre::;ent writ petition.

4. PER USED THE RECORD. ? /,. 3 SN, J A. The lmDuone d memo File No .REV/G/L Alooo2/2 o2L- SUPDT(G-SEC) dated O .o3.202L of the 4th resoond nt is ext acted here u nder: - Sharifuddin In the reference 2nd cited, the Chief Engineer, KTPP, Chelpur has stated that, an extent of Ac 2-00 gts in Sy.No.1104 situated at Dubbpa[y Village of Ghinpur Mandal was acquired for the purpose of establishing KTTP duly paying compensation to Smt. Haffezabee W/o.Late Khaja proceedin gs. n o.B / 37 7 3 / 2006, Dtd : 08. 06. 2007. Against the sald Award, Sri Md. Fayasuddin s/o.Faqrudding (First petitioner herein), who is the grandson of Khaja Sharifuddin has applied for the post of lunior plant Attendant in the year 2011 under land looser category in response to the notification no.01/CGIM(HR)/2010, Dtd:05.01.2011and the same was rejected by the District Selection Committee on 01.07.2013, as he is not entitled in terms of G.O.Ms.No.98 since he is the Grandson oF Smt. Hafeezabee (In terms of G.O.Ms.No.9B the candidate is eligible for appointment under this scheme shall be the displaced persons or his/her son, daughter or spouse, there being no other earning member in the family). In the reference 5th cited, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Bhupalpally has reported that, on verification of the records available in file no.B/3773/2006, an extent of land Ac.2-00 Gts in Sy. No. 1104 situated at Dubbapally H/o.Chelpur Village was acquired for the purpose of establishing KTPP duly paid compensation to Smt. Hafeezabee W/o. Late Khaja Sharifuddin through KGB cheque no.605077 dated: 06.08.2007 vide RDO, Mulug Prodgs.No.8/3773/2006, Dtd: 26.05.2007. Further, in Sy. No. 1106 total extent of Ac. 15-08 Gts was acquired vide the RDO, Mulug Prodgs No.83773/2006, Dtd:07.08.2006 and paid the compensation to the land loosers, but the names mentioned in the Legal Notice dated: 16.03.2019 were not found in the Award. I 4 SN, J Further it is informed that, the Governrrt]nt vide G.O Ms.l\lo.9B Irrigation (Project wing) Dept:., Dtd: 15.04.1986 have issued orders for providing em)loyment under larrd looser quota that, "the candidate is eligible for appointn ent under this scheme shall be the Jisplaced persons rtr his/her son, daughter or spou-se/ there being no other earning member in the family". Further the Hon'ble Hi oh Court. Andhra Prad esh in another ca se tn w_a .No.1387 2o11 orders datedt O2.O2.2O12 held that "the orandson cannot be called as a -.of---!he q randfather / la nd loser whose land was a uired. The dependant of a land loser is onlv his/her.sDouse, son and dauqhter. " deoend a nt On oerusal of the reDorts, it ts evident that the Petitio n ers in W.P.No.L84L7 ol 20 19 and the names mentioned in the Leoal Notice Dtd: 16.03.2O19 are neither the Iand loosers nor soouse / son / d a uq hter the land lo Hence taking into consideration of the reports obtained frorr the Chief Engineer, KTPP, Chelpur and t re RDO, Bhupalpally and in terms of the Government orders issued vide G.C.Ms.No.98 Irrigation (Project wing) Degrt., Dtd: 15.04.1936 and the Hon'ble High Court, Andhra Pradesh in W.A No,1387/20II vide orders dated: 02.02.2012, the individua s viz., Petitioner-1 1.e., Sri Mohammed Fayazudc in S/o. Md Fakruddin and the petitionerr-2 i.e., Md.FaslurJdin Ms Fhasi Bab 5/o.Md Rasheed Pasha and the individua s shown in the Legal Notice Dtd: 16.03.2r)19 viz., 1. Naziya Begum D/o.Faqruddin, 2.Asiya Fahreen D/o.Faqruddin, 3. Ghousiya Begum D/o.Faqruddin, 4. Tayyaba D/o.Faqruddin and 5. Bismillaha Begum D/o.Faqruddin are not eligible For appointmerrt under landiooser quota in terms of G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 15.04.19136. Hence, their claim is rejected . l 5 Th fth Divi B n t hi .o2.2 2 ed in A.N 87 011 rticu I ar Nos. 9 ar extr ed'h r nd r SN. J B. The Government while considering representation of the displaced persons evolved the icheme of providing employment to the displaced person, his dependanti namely son, daughter or spouse alone and accordingly issued GO Ms. No. 98 dated 15.4.1986. Clauses +(i) and (ii) of the said G.O. are relevant for the purpose of adjudication of the controversy involved, which read as under:

4. After careful examination and consideration, the following orders are issued in supersession of orders in GO Ms. No.676 Irrigation & power Department dated 17.11.1978. (i) Not more than 50o/o of the vacancies of the categories equivalent to lunior Assista n ts/Typists and the cadres below arising in major and medium irrigation and power projects shall be filled up by the displaced families/or their dependants of a respective projects duly following the reservation for various categories viz., SC, ST, BC, Ex-Servicemen, Physically Handicapped and Meritorious Sportsmen, etc. (ii) The candidates eligible for appointment under this scheme shall be the displaced persons or his/her son, daughter or spouse, there being no other earning member in the family.

9. Clause (i) above provides for filling up 50% of the vacancies in the categories equivalent to lunior Assista nts/Typists and the cadres below arising in major and medium irrigation and power projects, to be filled by the displaced persons or their dependants in the respective projects duly following the reservation for various categories like Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes, Ex-Servicemen, physically Handicapped and Meritorious Sportsmen, etc. Clause (ii) above speaks of eligibility criteria prescribed for the appointment under \ *".e. I 6 SN, J the scheme, to be a displaced person/ his/her son, daughter or spouse and there being no earning mr,)mber in the fami y. Clause 4(i) deals with the percentage of vacancies to be filled by the displaced per;ons or dependarts after following the rule of res(:)rvation. Therefore, we are of the opinion that clause 4(i) rt:lates to fillinq up of 50% vacancies by the displaced farnilies or their dep:ndants while clause 4(ii) relates to the ,,:ligibility criteria fc r such appointments by the displaced pe rsons or his/her scn/daughter or spouse alone, if there t)eing no other earning member in the family. The qrandson cannot be called as a deDendant h w The dependant of a land loser is onlv his/her spouse, son and dauqhter, if thev continue to be non-earninq member of the familv. If the qrandsons a re also considered as eliqible for aopointment then there will not be an end to draw a line, as the qreat qra ndsons mav also seek emDlovment under the 5oo/o vacancies for the displaced fanrilies in the respective Droiects. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the respondent is not entitled to be considered for the appointment under GO Ms, No. 98 dated 15.04.2O06. Consequently, the orde. dated 05.03.20 t0 passed by the learned Single Judge n WP NO. 2993 of 2002 is set aside and the writ appeal is acr:ordingly allowed and the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs. w rV C. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the res o n dent No.4 n rticular para No.4 is extracted hereu nds;: In reply ':o Para 4 of the Affidavit it is humbly sr.rbmitted that the petitioner filed W.P.No. tB4I7 of 2Cr19 and W.P.No. 13797 of 2019, which have been Filed bc:fore the Hon'ble l-{igh Court for gaining undue employmert in the office of lespondent No. 2 with a reprehensible irrtention, as come up with another malignant ideology of' r:;peaking about a vrill deed in respect of the land admeasurirrg to an extent of Acs. 2-00 situated in Sy.No. 1104, lvt.ich was 7 SN. .I purported to have been executed in his favour by his grandmother. The petitioner has not submitted any will deed copy or any details related to the said will deed in :upport of his allegations to the Hon'ble High Court, then. The act of the petitioner in disclosing 'of polsession of the will deed in his favour after a lapse of 15 years of time from the date of passing of Award of his grandmother, is a clear malafide intention to utterly waste the precious time of the Hon'ble High Court, which cannot be ruled out. The petitioners grandmother Smt. Hafeesabee, W /o. Khajasha rifuddin has received the Award amount Rs. 3,38,000/- in Award procdgs. No. 8/3773/2006. It is further submitted that, if the plea which available if failed to raise at that point of time same can't be allowed subsequently, on this legal ground alone the present Wp is liable to be dismissed. It is submitted that petitioner issue a legal notice on 16_ 03-2019 issued by y. Nagender, Advocate Warangal on behalf of 1. MD Fayazuddin S/o Faqruddin 2 Naziya Begum D/o Faqruddin. 3. Asiya Fahreen D/o Faqruddin,4. Ghousiya Begum D/o Faqruddin. 5. Tayyaba D/o Faqruddin and 6. Bismillaha Begum D/o Faqruddin all the resident of Dubbapally (V) of Ghanpur (M) was addressed to the Chairman & Managing Director (CMD), fSGENCO, Hyderabad to provide employment in TSGENCO under land looser quota, as his Client's Iand was acquired under TSGENCO in Sy.No. 1104/ZO situated at Dubbapaily (V) to an extent of Ac 2-00 Gts. On perusal of the reports, it is eVident that the Petitioners in WP.No.18417 of 2019 and the names mentioned in the Legal Notice Dtd: 16-03-2019 are neither the land loosers nor spouse/son/daughter of the land looser. The Petitioner name was not there in the Award nor he is the Dependent of the land looser. I vtew of the above submissions nd the facts t e u !an t n! r r r l 8 Sr.\. J r n nor the eli and qot reiected bv the then District Selection Committ e (Waranqal) on OL.O7.2OL3 r>n the qrounds that the petitioner is neithe r the d isolaced endent of the di Derso n to claim emolovment under land lose and therefore the oetition is liable to be dismissed s sutrmltted that the stnce iti sde void of mer ts filin on or the othe n r has been fre writ petitions with the onlv oraver of ainincr undue in the Resoondent 2 Coroo ration, emolovment thouqh he is verv much aware of the fact th at he is ill intentionallv wastin o the DTecious time of the Hon'ble Hiqh Court for a vacious cause. tI

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the request of the petitioner for appointment under land loser quota in terrms of G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 15.04.1986 has to be considered, since the petitioner is the grandson of the displaced person and therefore, the petitioner has a right to be considered for employment under land loser quota,

6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.3 & 4 placing reli;rnce on G.O.MS.No.98, dated 15.04.1986 and the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, dated O2.O2.2O12 passed in W.A.No.1387 oJ 2OLL contends that the petitionq'r is not entitled for any relief. 9 SN, J 7 A bare perusal of the G.O.Ms.No.gg, dated 1S.04.1986 in particular Clause 4(a) and (ii) of the said G.O. very clearly indicates that the candidate eligible for appointment under this scheme shall be the displaced persons or his/her son, daughter or spouse, there being no other earning member in the family, the said G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 15.04.19g6 does not provide employment for grandson of the displacecl person as claimed by the petitioner herein.

8. A bare perusat of the observations of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, dated O2.02.2012 passed in W.A.No.13B7 of 2OLL relied upon by the respondents (referred to and extracted above) very clearty indicates that the grandson cannot be called as a dependant of the grandfather/land loser whose land was acquired. The dependant of a tand loser is only hisr/her spouse, son and daughter, if there being no other earning member in the family" 9 This Court also taking note of the observations of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court. dated J t 10 SN, J O2,O2.2OL2 passed in W.A.No.1387 of 2011 which clearly indicates that if the grandsons are also considered as eligible for appointment then there will not be an end to draw a line, as the great grandsons may also seek employment under the reserved 5oo/o vacancies for the displaced families in the respective projects.

10. This Court opines that this Court cannot have any different opinion/view on the subject issue as rendered by the Division Bench of this Court vide its juclgment, dated 02.02.2012 passed in W.A.No.1387 of 2O11

11. Ta kinq into consideration:- a ) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the t:ase. The srrbmissions made by the learned icounsel b) appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.3 & 4. c) The contents of the impugned memo File No.REV/G/ L A/ Ooo2/ 2O21-SUPDT(G-SEC), dated 08.03.2021 r:f the 4th respondent (referred to and extracted above) SN, J d) The judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, dated O2.O2.2OL2 passed in W.A.No.1387 of 2011 (referred to and extracted above) e) The counter affidavit filed on behalf bf the respondent No.4 (referred to and extracted above) I , f) The fact as borne on record even as per the averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 4th respondent that the petitioner represented for employment under land loser quota for the post of Junior Plan Attendant and the said representation had been rejected by the then District Selection Committee on O1.07.2013 on the ground that the petitioner is neither the displaced person nor the eligible dependent of the displaced person to claim employment under land loser quota. This Court opines that the present Writ petition filed by the petitioner is devoid of merits since no mandamus lies contrary to the regulations and accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, there shalt be no order as to costs. t2 SN. J Miscellan:ous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. I I To, //TRUE COPY// SD/- P. PADMANABHA REDDY \ --' '-..' \'\.- , i] uEiurv REGIsTRAR SECI'IONOFFICER 'l '1 . one CC to SRI D. RAI\iIAKRISHNA, Ag)/o^c3!e. lgRllc] 2. one cc to SRI sRlNlvl'ix'slixniftH, -SiANDING 5. iil; ddr'i" Op Fon SEpViCTS r ,Hign Court for the State of Telansana at 4. Two CD CoPtes CouNSEr toPUC] HYderabad [OtJT] BM KV CC TODAY HIGH COURT DATED:2510412025 ORDER WP.No.10085 of 2021 -_:. ... L 1..,' c r;) 4 'Ij (ir 21 i: ?ti5 i.:l .q (j .,o, \ DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS