THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION Nos.34095 and 34178 of 1998 DATE: 14-2-2008 COMMON ORDER: W.P.No.34095 of 1998 Chennuru Koteswara Rao … Petitioner And Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd Secunderabad …. Respondent THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION Nos.34095 and 34178 of 1998 COMMON ORDER: Both these writ petitions are filed by persons whose land were acquired by the A.P.I.I.C. for being allotted to the respondent-Corporation. The petitioners claim appointment under the land-losers category. While the respondents have filed counter affidavit in W.P.No.34095 of 1998, no counter affidavit has been filed in W.P.No.34178 of 1998. The order impugned in these writ petitions is a letter intimating the petitioners that their cases for appointment would be considered along with others on merit, subject to their meeting the recruitment norms of the Corporation and their names being sponsored by the local employment exchange against the notification issued by the Corporation. From the counter affidavit filed in W.P.No.34095 of 1998, it is evident that the petitioner therein was permitted to appear for the written test, but no further action was taken thereafter in view of the orders passed in W.P.Nos.11337 and 17050 of 1998 which are said to be still pending on the file of this Court. Dr.P.B.Vijay Kumar, Learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation would, however, submit that the respondent – Corporation has subsequently taken a decision not to proceed and has, in fact, rescinded the said notification. However there is nothing on record to substantiate this oral submission now made across the bar. As noted above no counter affidavit has been filed in W.P.No.34178 of 1998 and it is not know whether the petitioner therein was considered for appointment, and whether he was permitted to participate in the written test. In case he has not, then, the question which would require to be answered is whether the Corporation was justified in not permitting him to participate in the process of selection merely on the ground that his name had not been sponsored by the local employment exchange. Sri S.Satyanarayana Prasad, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, would submit that no objection can be taken to the Corporation’s insistence on the applicant satisfying the recruitment norms of the Corporation. His objection is to the insistence of the Corporation on the names of the candidates being sponsored by the local employment exchange and that the petitioner’s case would be considered along with others on merit. As has been held by the Supreme Court in Excise Superintendent, Malkapatnam, Krishna District v. K.B.N.Visweswara Rao[1] such insistence is impermissible. Sri S.Satyanarayana Prasad, Learned Senior Counsel, would contend that since the petitioners’ lands have been acquired for allotment to the respondent-Corporation, the petitioner cannot be asked to undergo the ordeal of a written examination and interview or to compete with others on the basis of their merit, that the understanding entered into between the APIIC and the respondent – Corporation at the time of acquisition of the land would necessitate the petitioners being automatically appointed subject only to the condition that they fulfill the qualifications prescribed for such appointment. In the counter affidavit filed in W.P.No.34095 of 1998, respondents would specifically deny any such oral agreement or to have given any assurance any time. They further contend that the respondent has no legal obligation to provide employment to any person whether he is a land loser or not. They would also refer to the letter dated 21.2.1986 of the Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, whereby all Chief Executives of public sector undertakings were informed that any understanding, formal or informal, in regard to the offer of employment to one member of every dispossessed family in the project would stand withdrawn. The circular, as noted above, was issued to all public sector undertakings. Since the respondent – Corporation has specifically denied such an oral understanding the petitioners cannot claim, as of right, that on their lands being acquired, they are entitled to appointment in the respondent – Corporation. If, indeed, there had been an agreement, oral or otherwise, between the APIIC and the respondent – Corporation, it could only have been ascertained if the APIIC had been arrayed as a respondent in the writ petitions, which the petitioners have chosen not to do. I see no reason to disbelieve the averments in the counter affidavit of the respondent – Corporation that there is no such understanding and, in the absence of any agreement which confers on the petitioners a right to claim appointment on the ground that their lands have been acquired, no such relief can be granted. Since the writ petition has been filed in the year 1998 soon after the notification was issued, it is but appropriate that the respondents be directed to consider the case of the petitioners in both the writ petitions without insisting that their names be sponsored by the local employment exchange, subject to their fulfilling the other conditions prescribed in the impugned proceedings and also subject to the final orders which may be passed in W.P.Nos.11337 and 17050 of 1998 provided, of course, that the respondents have not rescinded the notification. Both the writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. ___________ 14-2- 2008 asp [1] (1996)6 SCC 216