IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No : 19674 of 2008 Between: Saripalli Appa Rao S/o.Late Appala Swamy R/o.Door No.15-27/1, Appikonda R.H.Colony Vadlapudi Post, Visakhapatnam-46 ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Chairman & Managing Director, Visakha Steel Plant Visakhapatnam 2 The Dy.Chief Personnel Manager, Personnel Department Visakha Steel Plant, Visakhapatnam 3 The District Collector, Visakhapatnam-530001 .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 1 and 2 in not calling the petitioner for Test and interview for the post of Khalasi and not appointing him to the said post under displaced persons quota and as per the orders dated 16.12.2002 of this Hon`ble court in WP.No.8920 of 2000 as arbitrary, and illegal, and consequently direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Khalasi in any of the existing vacancies. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.SATYAM REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.V.RAVINDER RAO The Court made the following O R D E R : This Writ Petition has been instituted by a displaced person seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of Respondents No. 1 and 2 in not calling the writ petitioner for test and interview for the post of Khalasi, pursuant to the orders passed on 16th December 2002 in Writ Petition No. 8920 of 2000 as bad. The case of the writ petitioner is that land belonging to him situate in Survey No.185/4, Block No. 14/A at Appikonda Village, Visakhapatnam was acquired during the year 1983 for the purpose of establishing Visakhapatnam Steel Project there. As a policy measure, to rehabilitate such persons, who have been displaced by acquisition of lands belonging to them, the claims of such persons are directed to be considered by Visakhapatnam Steel Plant for the purpose of appointment. According to the writ petitioner, he has been submitting representations to the respondents, but the same have not been favourably considered and hence, on the last occasion, he filed Writ Petition No. 8920 of 2000, which came to be decided by this Court on 16th December 2002 in the following terms: “ In the circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed of declaring that the petitioner would be entitled to apply for any post if notified by the respondent steel plant for recruitment if the petitioner fulfills the requirements for such recruitment as and when notified. No order as to costs. It is further submitted that the petitioner is over aged to be considered for the post of Kalasi. It is open to the petitioner to make a representation to the concerned authorities for relaxation of age while considering his case for being appointed as Kalasi as and when vacancies arise in the respondent organization.” In spite of these directions, according to the writ petitioner, his case has not been taken up for consideration. Hence, he filed the present Writ Petition. The respondents have contested this Writ Petition by filing a detailed counter. It is asserted that as and when any recruitment drive is taken up by Visakhapatnam Steel Plant, invariably, the relevant notification will be furnished to the Special Employment Exchange, which has been set up at Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam exclusively for the purpose of considering the candidature of the displaced persons and so far, Visakhapatnam Steel Plant has engaged several persons in its service by drawing their names from the Special Employment Exchange at Gajuwaka. It is further made clear that whenever notifications are published by the Steel Plant, the displaced persons are entitled to submit their applications directly in response to such notifications and cases of such persons, even though they may not have been sponsored by the Employment Exchange concerned, will be taken up for recruitment. 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 pots of Khalais, 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 pot of Khalasi in future, so that you case can be considered for future vacancies as directed by the Hon’ble High Court.” From this, it is evident that Respondents No. 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. ---------------------------------- (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 20th July 2009 ksld -*..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1) 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRK}