The central legal point established in the judgment is the duty of the appellants to consider the appointment of the writ petitioner under the relevant G.O.Ms.No.98, highlighting the Court's duty to aid the helpless.

JUDGMENT

DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA, J. - This Writ Appeal is filed questioning the order passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.1450 of 2015, dtd. 28/12/2022.

2. This Court has heard Sri M. Vidyasagar, learned counsel for the appellant; Sri G.V.Sivaji, learned counsel for the 1st respondent-writ petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services appearing for the 2nd respondent.

3. The parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the Writ Petition for the sake of convenience.

4. The facts are not in dispute in this case. The writ petitioner is an applicant for a job with the 1st respondent (Present appellant) under the category of land losers. Admittedly, the land, belonging to the petitioner's family, was acquired and the petitioner, therefore, made an application in terms of the relevant G.O.Ms.No.98. The petitioner appeared for the selection and his name figured at Sl.No.64. His candidature was not considered because he did not submit Non-Earning Member Certificate and there was mismatching of his father's name. Later, a clarification was issued by the Tahsildar about the writ petitioner's father name. The petitioner was invited for the next District Selection Committee Meeting and his name was included in the list as already objections were complied with. But by this date it was stated that there are no further vacancies and his name would be considered as and when vacancies arise.

5. Since his candidature was rejected the writ was filed and the same was allowed by the learned single Judge. Questioning the same, the 1st respondent filed the present Writ Appeal.

6. The matter was argued by Sri Vidyasagar and at the direction of this Court a typed list of persons employed under the land losers quota was filed. It is revealed that 88 persons were ultimately recruited under the land losers quota. Sri G.V.Shivaji, learned counsel for the writ petitioner-1st respondent argues that even though no fault was committed by the writ petitioner he was being penalized and despite the clarification issued and the documents submitted the case of the petitioner was not considered. He also points out that an earlier writ was filed and an order was passed on 28/12/2022 to consider the case of the petitioner, if he was otherwise qualified under the land losers quota. He points out that despite the same the stand taken by the respondent is that there are no vacancies and therefore, the rejection of his case is wrongful. He points out that because of the interim order the respondents had a duty to keep the post vacant and also immediately to consider the case of the petitioner, instead of doing so they have rejected the petitioner's case.

7. He points out that the data reveals that many candidates joined in the jobs after the case of the petitioner was recommended by the District Selection Committee on 24/1/2014.

8. This Court has heard both the learned counsel. As stated earlier there is no serious dispute about the facts. The first meeting was conducted on 28/12/2012 and 89 members were found to be eligible under the land losers quota but an objection was raised with regard to the petitioner's eligibility as his father's name did not tally etc.

9. The documents filed reveal that on 17/7/2013 itself the District Collector had addressed a letter to the Chief Engineer, Rayalseema Thermal Power Project (who is the 3rd respondent in the writ and the 2nd appellant herein), that the petitioner's father name is actually L.Pedda Subba Reddy and that L. Subba Reddy and L. Pedda Subba Reddy are one and the same. Therefore, the essential objection raised by the appellant was addressed and clarified by this letter dtd. 17/7/2013 itself.

10. Thereafter, the District Selection Committee was scheduled to be held on 13/11/2013 for selection under the land losers quota. This was postponed and ultimately it was held on 24/1/2014. The letters filed along with the writ petition bear testimony to this. On 24/1/2014 the selection committee recommended t