L. Ravi Kumar. S/o. Thirupalhi Rao v. consequentry direct the

Counsel for the Pelitioner: SRI' G' V' SHIVAJI Counsel for the Respondent No'1: GP FOR IRRI AND COMI\l AREA DEV Counsel for the Rerspondent Nos' 2to4: SRI S' SRIKANTH' SC t:CrR GENCO The Court made th e following: ORDER t' () HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA trIRIT PETITIOI{ No. 2192o oF 2017 ORDER: The case of petitioner is that their land to an extent ol Ac. O-20 guntas in Survey Ghanpur Mandal, Warangal No. 1144, Chelpur Village, District was acquired Lry Respondents 3 and 4 for the purpose of establishment of Kakal,iya Tl-reimal porver project through Awarci No. B/3773/2oo5, dated 07 08-2006. The father of the petitioner being Pattedar of the agricultural land, agreecl for acquisition of the land without ;,rny objection with a hope of setring employment to petitioner, being his son. it is stated, the authorities informed the father of petitioner to make Application for a1:rpointmen t when notification is issued for lilling up the posts in Kakatiya Thermal Power Project. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent for thc first Lime after acquisition, issued Notification d,ated 22 O4-2O13 for the posts of Security Guarcl to be filled up on regular basis. [n response thereto, petitioner applied for the saici post enclosing No Earnlng It4ember Certificate rr.nd Land Loser Certihcate etcetera, hou..ever, he rvas not j.ssued Hall Ticket. Then, petilioner along r,,.ith another filed Writ Petition No. 5029 of 2Ol4 wherein respondents w-ere directed to issue Flall Ticket to the petitioner for pirysical I I I I ) Measurentell "t rsL and Physical trfhciency Test ui'Ce ordel rlatcd 2l-O2-2O L4 'Tl- ough for the land oustees alsc" Writtcr Tcst' Physical \4rrlr s: rt ment Test and Ph)'sical trfhciencl Tr:s L u.eie prescribe,l. r':r's Courl declared that sub-jecting lLLc:lt elg'lin for .,rn-itten t()st ihlI.t othcr qualifying examinations r"'ou1l reslrlt jn clefeating tltc /'rl-\r object of providing employme:r'- llrrol gh the scheme.)r-.rsrtl.nttothesame,pctitionerattcnd.:cl1.I.reFry,si:al Measurerne'lt 'jest and Physical Effrciencl' Test ancl in ricu' of exemption, 11, : l tali Tickets lr'ere collected b1' [hl alt hor t es by inlormir-r1g lLi:n :.hat atl the Applications of llrnd k:ser'' ha'c bcen foruardc i .o 'L'c District Selection Committee, fCr '*'l-rictr tlre 3'd responde nr i's the Chairman and petitioner has l'recn ri'aiting lor consider'lt;on c'l his case u'ith a lond tt' rp': c'l p'etting emplovn cI 11 . I iou'ever, respondents considt re d rl e Sri B.Suresh, rr t.: o l'ilcd Writ Petition along uith tht pcl itiorie r' but his case \\ as I tol consiclered though he is eligii;le i"n'l e:rtitled under Littr l I os.r category. He therefore, is statt d tc h:l"e r-iu cle represer 1-. tio .tr. dated O2-O3 2016 a d C15-03 2C 1 ) L rl\!'ever' his case \1 as I-oi consi<lered. Petitioner again frl:d \i/rit Fetition No, 2326o t,f 20 16 rvhich was disposecl o" u:de: or<lt r dated 12.08.2()15, rlirecting consideration of the case Cf p:titioner observirLgi ltlilt one Mr. B. Suresh who rvas a petition lr a'iong vr.ith petirion,:r. herein was appointed, lvhereas p.t iti rnr:r ltas rlol: J e been issued with appointment orders. Thereafter the 4s respondent submitted requisition to the District conector on 19 .12,2O16 for conducting District Selection Committee meeting for considering petitioner,s case, but, surprisrngly, without placing the case of petitioner before District selection Committee, the impugned Speaking order was issuecl on 19.O1-2017 rejecting his case stating that he has not submitted Application in response to the notification and that he appeared for selection pursuant to the Interim orders of this Court. The grievance of pctitioner is that since this Court directed respondents to allow petitioner for selection, the ground of non-submission of Application cannot be put against him now. The further ground stated in the impugned Rejection order that copies of Land Loser certirrcate and other testimoniars were not submitted with in time is also unsustainable as all the certificates were submittecl to the 4th respondent, who, in fact, categorically srated in his retter addressed to the District Collector that. the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Mulugu has also attested the copies of Land Loser Certihcate and verification report about acquisition of land of petitioner, apart from No Earning Member certificate

3. In the counter afhdavit frled on behalf of Respondents 2 to 4, it is stated. at the stage of conducting I I I 4 \vrittcn c:<arIitr.ttion to the general candidates [o[ller rbe n land loser ap1;li, ::rr t ril , after about nine months fro n: 1 're IrLtc of issuing )olil-icztion, Petitioner and another [Sri B Srr''-'shl hied 'rrc1e r dated Writ Peti .ion l\ft',. 5029 of 2014, and pursuant to --he 2) .C2.2Ol^ , pe -ilioners thereir-r were issued Hall ticker s -t e re by affording irn opportunity for participation in PIV T i t' PtrT' fot' "I h1'sical hou,ever, tlle present petitioner has not ' '11qndcd I t i t 1 Measurem,r:trt'lt:st".Someofthelanrilosers:pl)r)aljiedthLs Court b; fili-rr1 Writ Petition Nos 21967, 24664 ' 2'18 /t) and 3675 i o ' )O I I irLter alia contending that their ci ntli' la il rt: sirall t:o l;idered for appointment under Lanc l'oser' '1uota' havc to .rc \,.,ithouts;r-bltctingthemtoPhysicalEfltciency'l'esrt'ThsCcurt grantcd ir: ter t'r orders therein, pursuant to wh ich ' t:ik trrg in--o consideratiotr the guidelines specihed in (l ) \1'; No 98' Irrigation (Pr c,jcct Wing) Department, dated 5 Ul Lc 8t'' Lhc Boardoii)ir.tc.torsofTGGtrNCoinitsl3|l.BoiLrdrr..et:titrgheid on 26.1 I ..201 5, had taken a decision to exempl tht' lar d loscrs from passi;rg Lhe second lcvel test as per Claust: I 5 ,Ai {i ') (b) of the nolificr:.I ic,n from and out of select list of ia n I lose rs recomretLcie j by the respective District Selectior-r Co rmittee' Therefo rc s, rl :ctions have been finalized with -ru t rcfe rt:nce to the secor c[ t vel, i.e. Physical Efhciency Test specifie'l in the notilicatic u, n respect of land loser applicz n1s Pe tiLitlner's 5 /i- * name is not figuring as land loser in the list forwarded by the District Collector, Warangal. Per contra, the name of Sri B.Suresh found place in the list forwarded by the District Collector, Warangai. The only factor for consideration is whether petitioner found place in the District Selection list or not, which has bearing on the consideration of his candidature for employment under land loser quota. Here it is to be noted that in terrns of relevant provisions of GOMs.No.98, dated

15.04.1986, the clainr for employment shall be made by the eligible land loser before the District Collector concerned within one year from the date of displacement. Undispuredly, petitioner has not made Application within the stipulated period of one year enabling examination of his candidature for employment under land loser quota. The candidature of the land losers shall be considered as and when the appointing authority issues a notification for direct recruitmenl. Thereiore, the respondent Corporation is under no obligation to consider the candidature of land losers as and when they make a representation/ obtain land loser certihcate/no earning member certihcate from the concerned authorities. It is stated, petitioner made representations dated O2.O3.2016 and 06.03.2016, by u.hich time, the entire selection I I I I I i I I I I I I I 6 procedurl \iias il1- the fag end an<l the consequent al lrlcrn I Cated 1 5.03.20 1 6, r:i: I !'.d no purpose for petitioner sir ce ' hc ) 'strict Seicctior-r !o rrrrittee has already met muc h ccfo -e the represen,a-ioi of the petitioner and the list of e igib e land losers fot cn-rplolment against the notified posts '\ias aisc rlratn up. It rs s'a1r cl that other land losers who made Ap1'lic:ar'i')ns al the relelatrt lr>int of time showcasing the req''rjsit: 1t triils oi lancl lost cerr ficates, educational qualifications, :r.11e pr.rr:i:lrlirrs etc., lounrl l,lirr:e in the selcction list dated 24 ('2'2t)' 4' as forrr,ar<1e o b], r'.rrl Dislrict Selection Committee c-)nr,t:n.:c lbl t-he purpose i t 1t -r rsuance of the provisions ol G O Nts' t;o. ! 8 dzrtcd 15.04.I !)8,r 'r'ad rvith G.O.Ms' No 266, da ecl 1() )()'1994 issued r', 11 t Irrigation (PW) Department, ()cvt cf l'nChra Praclesl-t. , tr.:c:t;-clingiy, atl the eligible candidates r:o''ere:i in tire selcction ist rf land losers/their depencients, as rrpprored by lhe Distri':t :lt-lection Committee, were provider: etr:pl()1 nrenl io Lhe post :ll security Guard/Fireman under Lrnd lost r qllota againsL 5()(,1, ct<isting vacancies then notihed The r-arrclic z tltre' ll Sri B- Surcslr one of the petitioners in Writ Petjtion No fi029 of 2014 u as, :;tlsidered for the post of Security C-ir'iarrI in lhe responcielrl ,:r:tporation as his name v'as shou'rr ar SI \o 6O ln the se1<:c1 ior list of land losers/ their dependents, as i Llrproved I L i I I I i t: t I I I I I j ; l l i a I I : I l I l ; I 1 i I 'I I I I 1 t- by the District Selection Committee in the meeting held on 24.O2.20t4. It is also stated that petitioner filed Writ petition No. 23260 of 2016 contending that thc candidature of co_petitioner i.e. B.Suresh was considered for appointme.nt against one of the notihed posts leaving him. It is pertinent to state here that petitioner filed the said Writ petition in suppression of the fact that he had not adhered to the interim ciirections dated 21.A2.2014 of this Court in Writ petition No. 5029 of 2O14. He has not responded at the relevant point of time in terms of the aforesaid directions and thus, there was no scope for the Respondents to verify his testimonials for considering his candidature for appointment under land loser quota. He also failed to bring to the notice of this Court that thc name of Sri B.Suresh found place in the District Selection Committce list dated 24.02.2014 ald that his name was not forming part of the said list. Be that as it may, the said Wp came to be disposecl of vide orders dated 12.08.2016, ir-rter-alia that ,,_..Ih view o[ the facts stated above and in view of the pendency of the representat.ions of the petitioner dated O2.O3.2016 before the third respondent. ald 06.03.2076 before the fourth respondent, this Court is inclined to dispose of the Writ petition directing Respondents 3 and 4 to consider the representations of I I I 8 ' .i' I I pe titioncr . r a lilke necessarv action for consi(tc rzi -ion c f his caseinectclt.ti..ncer'vithlaw,withinaperiodoflhreetr,lnlhs f;-or, thc Cirt:: r1 :eceipt of a copy of this orcler" "' llI '()m ) ial.rce thereof. rnrp'.5lr:ed speaking orders rejecting lhi cl rim of pe titlone r' t)ii1 it'.oner filed reply to the countilr statilre ttrat 3. responde nts have issued notihcation dated 12'04'l2t 13 for firemrr.n ;nci ;t curiq' guard; 120 vacancies ar€r eal mzrr Il-'d for fireman c,,tc!ot1 trnd 241 for security guard clteg:ry ()ut. of u.hich 7ti l)oi,s .11 the security guards and 22 in thc cilt rgon' of firen'r:ri 1r j t-(''tr|ied ln Kakatiya Thermal Po''l'er Pt'cr- ect l't:rorLg the sard r at i t' c:ies, as per the policy decision of' (iover lment arcL dircc:l on s issue<1 in G.O Ms.98, dt 15 04 1()8{), 50c 6 'f the vacancjes ril\ r' -o be reserved for land losers / dis pl'ac eci 1'ersorls' or their clepr rt Lclcnts Therefore, 39 posts are m(12 nt o I land loscrs :r;.1t:g,,:; '.!', t)ut of 78 security guards and I 1 :rost ; ir" t he calegofy oI I]'r:man, But the respondents have not lillerl r-Lp the quota rrc..ILL 1,lr lanc-loser, in spite of avaiiabilitl' o1 ca rtI datcs like Petir otr,:r. Respondents issued the impr'rgnt:d ::pe'rking order rl:rlt'ci 19.O1.2077, rejecting the candidat 'rre ol p:titioner oni1, L)r-l l,ht ground that petitioner has nol st ttrmitted Applicat.icn r,'ith copies of land loser certificate antl no t arning membrl cert.lrcate within the time stipulated in the n':tlfication, I I I a I I I i I I l I though petitioner submitted the same even before conducting DSC on 24.02.2014, and further this Hon,ble Court granted interim directions on dated 21.O2.2014, itself, the respondents ought to irave considered the petitioner under land loser category. It is stated though petitioner attended physical Test, respondents have shown him as not candidates namely Ojjala Srisailam, B. attended, whereas Measurement Suresh and others, Measurement Test who are said to have failed in physical and Physical Efficiency Test, have becn appointed. The said appointment orders are being fileil as material papers along with this reply. This shou,s the respondents rvith predetermination, have been denying employment to the petitioner illegally and arbitrarily. categorically entitlement enLitlement It is relevant to state that Hon,ble Suprcmc Court considered the issue of eiigibility as u,cll as by producing documentary evidence in proof of and eligibihty even after cut_off date in Dottg Chhanda u. Chairman, JEE1.

4. Heard Sri G.V. Shivaji, learned counsel for I petltioner as well as Sri S Srikanth, lerned Standing Counscl for respondent GtrNCO. (2O0s) 9 scc 779 I I l0 ,\ 1:erusal of the impugned speakinil ordel sltotvs 5. that th(' c:iLlic i.ji.Lture of petitioner was rejecte<i ort]v l)rl the grcuncl ! ru l I ( has not submitted Application wittL r:o ries of f1 lalldioser.:i.i-]-i..:ateandnoearningmemberccrlifi<:al'er,'.it}rin thc rimc st,pL.rlrrtecl in the notification' Petitioner submit-ed the samee\/(i1b(ri,reconductingDSCor.24'02'21)14'Asallthe cerlificar,,:s rr, r: submitted to the 4ft respondent' he' r fact' catcgoric:tl \ s-ilted in his letter arldressed Io the llstrict Collecror ti)llt t 11.. Revenue Divisional oflrcer (RDo), i',Ir-rlr.gu has also atleilcd I.c coptes of Land Loser Certificatc and vcrili:ation repOrt i1i]..11. llc.lluisltion of 1ancl of petitioner, zrra rt f -c rrr No Earning Mcrnt,:t' certiltcate Further this Court grarrted interim dirccttor s rltr ,t'i 27.O2.2O14 to consider the ca;e oi 1le -i ioner' rr:sDorrl:trts'r 'r;iht to have considerecl his case rltrdrr Ialil ioser' categor:)r. I is stated by petitioner that thcugl'r p rtilioner attcndrrl ''ll, si:al Measurement Test, respondents i-rav': shou'n hirn :is ,t.)l a:iended, whereas candiCates narnr:l'- Ojjala Srisarl:utr. F. -S''lresh and others, who are said to have la iled in Phr.sic:riil:rL.r.lremenlTestandPhysicaiEffic'enc-l'l-ts''have becn .rp; c,ir L,:ci. The said appointment orde rs 'lre filed as maierial pa tl:rs along u'ith the reply of petiticiner rvhich' acCorci.';c t-t-- irt:titioner shows predetermination ol resl.rcndents to der y t: n t' rl':1'menl to petitioner illegally anc al b trarily 1l t Further, since this Court directed respondents to allow petitioner for selection, the ground of non-submission of Application cannot be put against him now. 6. Here it is to be noted that in terms of relevant provisions of GOMs.No.98, dated 15.04.1986, the claim for emplovment shall be made by the eligible land loser before the District Collector concerned within one year from lhe date of displacement. Undisputedly, petitioner has not made Application within the stipulated period of one year enabling examination of his candidature for employment under lancl loser quota. Since the candidature of land losers shall be considered as and when the appointing authority issues a notification for direct recruitment and since in this case the notification was issued in 2013, the contention of respondent Corporation that I I lhey are under no obligation to consider the candidature of land losers as and when they make a representation/ obtain land loscr certihcate/no earning member certlficate from ttre ! concerned authorities, does not flow much water.

7. Petitioner frled I.A. No. 1 of 2024 to receive the inforrnation obtained under the Right to Information Act dated

22.O8.2023 given by the 2"d respondent 's ofhce. Along with the said Application, he has annexed the letter addressed by the PIO detailing the number of vacancies in various categories of I I I r I 'l posts rn (:'l'P ' t rlle I & II; as per which, Security ( )ua: d posts are I 1 and Firr:rr,:r L rre four as of 22.08.2023 8 'i- r, rrr:forc, without going into the furthe - rr e -its of thc cast : i Lr:r, r.dmittedly, petitioner's fati Ler's iar rc u.as acquired 1i r I l : purpose of establishment of Kakativa 'l he rmal Porver Pr o.j :r:1 h rourgh Ar,r,ard dated 07 .08.2006 anc in v cu- of Lhe vacancr )( ,sriLion obtained under the Right to nlbr nration Act. this (lr:L r Cirects the respondent authorilies tc) ll)point petltione - rtl I e losi of Security Guard es per the noti ir;ation datcd .2 12 . ( ).1 I ) .3 within four weeks from the date of re:r:ipt of a copy r.rl t 1L j .; r -r ler 9 10 'l' r : r.Vrit Petition is accordingly, allolied. No , )c sts. ll r,rsequrntly, Miscellaneous Applir:at.jc ns, iI any shall sta'rd cl r: erl Tha" Ilule Nisi has been made absolute as atrove Witness THE HCN'BLETHE CHIEF JUSTICE S-UJOY PAUl-' TL'ESDAY 'THE SEVENTEE:Nrrr oav or"'iuiiErwo inousaND AND rwENw FlvE //TRUE COPY// SD/.N. SRIHARI DEPUIY REGISTRAR 'da't,o* oFFlcER " I Secretary, lrrigation (Projects Wing' Departrn':nt' Secretariat ?'"t"ffiliin'.g Director , Telangana st€rte F'o#er Generation " \riclvut Soudha, HYderabad' C:ollector / Chairman' District Selection Comtnittee' Warangal E noineeer, Kakatiya Thermal Power F'roie:1 Chelpur (V)' Lla;dal. Warangal District. l'l zy] iUXuikAilrrL"Jol'fi, coMr/'j:RCrAL AREA r fur Hion b"'rrt r"r'ir.r" state'or retanglna at H;c erabad [oUT] i,i's.'tnrxenri . sc FoR GENCo [oPJC] To,

1. The Pr nc:iPa Buildinlls,T.S 2. The Cl'ai-m: Corporirti()n. 3. The District District 4. The Chi'-'f BhoopitlPalli 5- One Ct) to I 6. Two (]C.s DEVE[.OPI!/ 7. One C'l 1o S 8. Two CJ rlol B t\,'l GJP ffiftB$ewilKWrtwM I I I i I 1 I i I I ! I I I l I t I I i I i i I I a l : I 'i 1 l t i I I I : '. i l r I i I I i , I I I I i I I t I I t CC TODAY HIGH COL'RT DATED:17 n6|,2025 ORDER WP.No.2192D of 2017 ..< ) () (.i . 1H- sll I 2C t N a ,..:, ALLoWINGTHEWRITPETITIoNWITHoI.J.|-CoSTS \\ N,\ ,- --v,\'l _)