THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO.1082 OF 2009 Dt. 19.8.2009 Between: Macherla Laxmi .. Appellant And The General Manager, NTPC, Ramagundam, Karimnagar and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO.1082 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Anil R. Dave) The appellant - original petitioner, who claims to be a displaced person, filed Writ Petition No.35755 of 1997 claiming to have a right to be given employment by respondent No.1 for whom appellant’s land had been acquired. Before the learned Single Judge, no evidence was adduced to show that the petitioner was a displaced person and no details with regard to the land belonging to her, which had been acquired for respondent No.1, were given. After hearing the concerned Advocates and looking to the facts of the case, the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that there was no evidence to show that the petitioner was a displaced person. According to policy of respondent No.1, the displaced persons, whose names were sponsored by concerned employment exchange, were to be given employment by respondent No.1 to a limited extent, but name of the petitioner was never forwarded by the concerned employment exchange and therefore the petitioner was not given employment by respondent No.1. Looking to the aforestated facts and in view of the fact that the petitioner had no right to get employment in respondent No.1 organization, the petition has been rejected. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant – original petitioner has submitted that the land belonging to the appellant had been in fact acquired. At this juncture, some evidence is shown to the effect that the land belonging to the appellant had been acquired for respondent No.1. However, the learned Advocate for the appellant could not show that the name of the appellant has been sponsored by the employment exchange, so that she can be given employment by respondent No.1. We do not find any substance in the appeal, especially when no evidence was adduced with regard to acquisition of land of the petitioner before the learned Single Judge and in view of the admitted fact that the name of the appellant had not been sponsored by the employment exchange. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the learned Single Judge has committed any error in rejecting the petition. The appeal is therefore dismissed with no order as to costs. ______________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ ______________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 19.8.2009 bnr