THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.10689 of 2008 ORDER: Bharat Dynamics Limited (BDL), a Government of India Organisation, was established at Bhanur Village of Medak District, in 1980’s , and it is started functioning from January 1989. Lands in various survey numbers of the village are acquired. In addition to paying the compensation, the Company as well as the Government of Andhra Pradesh evolved a scheme, for providing employment to land displaced persons (LDP). Petitioner claims that their land in Sy.No.381 was acquired, and in terms of Memorandum of Understanding, dated 01-01-1991, he was engaged as an Apprentice by the 5th respondent-company, for a period of one year, between 15- 10-1996 and 14-10-1997. He claims that when he was not engaged further, he approached this Court by filing W.P.No.22395 of 1997, and the same was disposed of with a direction to consider the case of the petitioner, as and when vacancies arise. Petitioner states that though a call letter dated 17-04-2008 was issued to him, for the post of Junior Technician (Radio Mechanic), he was not selected, and submits the action of the respondents 5 and 6 is contrary to the memorandum of understanding, as well as the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.22395 of 1997. The respondents filed a counter-affidavit, disputing the claim of the petitioner. It is stated that for the land in Sy.No.381, one Smt. Saddi Sathemma was identified as the LDP, and that she has been employed by the Company. Though the petitioner claims the status of LDP, he is not able to place the relevant material before this Court. He is said to be the son of the LDP. The identification of LDPs is to be done on the basis of the Award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. The record discloses that for the land in Sy.No.381, an Award dated 22-09-1986 was passed, and with reference to that, Smt. Saddi Sathemma, W/o. Saddi Ram Reddy was treated as the dependant of the LDP. The petitioner is not able to contradict this. Therefore, his claim, as dependant of LDP, cannot be accepted. The very fact that the respondents issued a call letter dated 17- 04-2008 discloses that the respondents 5 and 6 did consider the case of the petitioner. If the petitioner did not come up in the selection, it cannot be helped. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.03-07-2008. KO