THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO.486 OF 2001 Dt.05.11.2009 Between: Dharmala Paidi Reddy …………..Petitioner Vs. Chairma & Managing Director, Rastriya Ispat Nigam Limited, Visakhapatnam Steel Plant, Visakhapatnam and another. ………….Respondents O R D E R: Heard Sri B.M.Patro, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri G.Ravinder Rao. It is represented that in somewhat similar circumstances in W.P.No.19674 of 2008, this Court passed an order, dt.20.07.2008, which is to the following effect: “Since the writ petitioner has been making a grievance that his case has not been considered, Visakhapatnam Steel Plant has furnished him a reply on 30th October 2008, which is to the following effect: “Based on the directions issued by the Hon’ble High Court of AP and bio-data dated 15.10.2008 submitted by you, your case has been examined. This is to inform you that at present there are no vacancies in the post of Khalasi. As and when notification, if any is issued to fill up the posts of Khalasi, your case will be considered. However, you are advised to make an application in the format prescribed in pursuant to any notification for filling up the post of Khalasi in future, so that your case can be considered for future vacancies as directed by the Hon’ble High Court”. From this, it is evident that Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are not reluctant to take up for consideration the case of the writ petitioner for recruitment, but however, as was already pointed out by this Court in its judgment, dated 16th December 2002 rendered in Writ Petition No.8920 of 2000, the writ petitioner will have to make a representation at the relevant point of time when notification will be issued by the respondent-Steel Plant, firstly seeking relaxation of the upper age limit for consideration of his candidature and also submit an appropriate application form in response to the notification. It is the case of the Steel Plant that more than 15,000/- displaced persons are available and hence, it will be difficult to take up the claims of such persons without there being a proper application made by them. It is, therefore, appropriate to direct that the candidature of the writ petitioner be considered for recruitment against any suitable post, such as Khalasi or any other post, provided the writ petitioner submits his application seeking for relaxation of his upper age limit and for consideration of his candidature. In view of the assurance given by the Steel Plant, as noticed supra, the case of the writ petitioner would accordingly be considered by them against the next notification, which the Steel plant would issue. With this, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.” It is requested that a similar order would suffice even in this case. Therefore, the present writ petition also shall stand disposed of in the same terms as W.P.No.19674 of 2008 has been disposed of. -------------------------------------- NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO J., Dt.05.11.2009 tjs