APHC010558362011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3457]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 27916/2011 Between:

1.S.RAMANA,, S/O TATALU R/O D.NO.18-12026, SEERAVANIPALEM, PEDA GANTYADA POST, VISAKHAPATNAM - 44 ...PETITIONER AND

1.RASTRIYA ISPATH NIGAM LTD VISAKHA STEEL PLANT, REP.BY CHIEF MANAGING DIRECTOR, STEEL CITY, VISAKHAPATNAM

2.THE DIRECTOR PERSONAL/RECRUITMENT, VISAKHA STEEL CITY, VISAKHAPATNAM ...RESPONDENT(S):

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toto issue a writ or order or orders more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus; a) declaring the action of the respondents in not selecting the petitioner for the post of Junior Trainee (Roll No.1340189) in Advt. No.11/2008 as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Article 300-A, 14 and 19 of Constitution of India b) to order to respondents to provide employment any other suitable post being the rehabilitation card No.5 holder IA NO: 1 OF 2011(WPMP 34424 OF 2011 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the representations of the petitioner dated

6.7.2009 and 10.10.2009, pending disposal of the above writ petition IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to grant leave in filing this Counter Affidavit and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:

1.Y V SRINIVASAN Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.KIRAN KUMAR VADLAMUDI The Court made the following:

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 27916 of 2011

ORDER:

1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the action on the part of the respondents in not selecting him to the post of Junior Trainee, though the petitioner is entitled for employment on account of his father losing the land for establishment of the 1^st respondent-company. The petitioner's name is shown as nominee as per the R-Card nomination issued by the Land Acquisition Officer for Steel Plant, Visakhapatnam.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner appearing virtually online submits that the petitioner is eligible for employment and that the 2nd respondent has also announced a list of eligible candidates required to attend the medical examination. It is further submitted that the petitioner attended the medical test on 26.06.2009, and thereafter, the respondents neither communicated the result nor offered him employment to which he claims entitlement.

3. It is also submitted that, upon enquiry the petitioner came to know that the respondents have rejected his case on the ground of colour vision deficiency. It is also further submitted that the petitioner underwent medical test at King George Hospital, Visakhapatnam and was found medically fit. Though the said certificate was submitted, the respondent has denied employment to the petitioner.

4. The learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that this Court, by order dated 24.10.2011, passed interim direction directing the respondents to consider the representations of the petitioner dated 06.07.2009 and 10.10.2009 for appointment to the post of Junior Trainee pursuant to the Advertisement No.11 of 2008 and to pass appropriate orders within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order.

5. It is further submitted that the writ petition thereafter listed on

13.11.2024 and today it is taken up for hearing. It is also submitted that, on 29.01.2026, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents had submitted that in pursuance of the interim directions of this Court, the respondents have passed an order on 22.11.2011 rejecting the clai