Reservation for land losers in public employment is applicable only when a formal recruitment process is conducted, and does not grant an automatic right to fill leftover vacancies outside such a process.

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 to to issue a writ or order, orders or directions more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus - i. declaring the action of the 1st and 2nd respondents in not giving approval to the 4th respondent to fill up the left over 26 Junior Plant Attendant (JPA) vacancies with the land losers, who are qualified as on today, by exercising the discretionary power conferred to them in clause-18 of the Supplemental Notification dt.17-10-2011 as illegal, arbitrary, discriminative, non-application of mind, opposed to the doctrine of legitimate expectation, contrary to the spirit of G.O.Ms.No.98, dt.15-04- 1986 besides violative of the Arts.14 & 16 of the Constitution of India; and ii. consequently, direct the 1st and 2nd respondents to accord approval to the 4th respondent to appoint the petitioner along with other similarly situated land losers as JPAs against 26 left over JPA general vacancies in the Rayalaseema Thermal Power Project (RTPP), Kadapa duly considering the fact that the petitioner was interviewed on 24-01-2014 by the District Selection Committee (DSC) headed by the 5th respondent by according all incidental and consequential benefits on par with JPA appointees in pursuance of supplemental notification dt.17-10-2011; and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2016(WPMP 32117 OF 2016

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 representation dt.20-06-2016 and reminder representation dt.21-07-2016 of the petitioner in order to appoint him as Junior Plant Attendant (JPA) against the left over 26 JPA general vacancies without referring to the fact that the petitioner obtained M qualification subsequent to recruitment notification dt.17-10-2011 and pass

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. PEETA RAMAN

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR REVENUE (AP)

2. K.KRISHNABUSHAN CHOWDARY SC For APGENCO

The Court made the following

ORDER:

The writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, seeking the following main prayer:-

“……to issue a writ or order, orders or directions more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus - i. declaring the action of the 1st and 2nd respondents in not giving approval to the 4th respondent to fill up the left over 26 Junior Plant Attendant (JPA) vacancies with the land losers, who are qualified as on today, by exercising the discretionary power conferred to them in clause-18 of the Supplemental Notification dt.17-10-2011 as illegal, arbitrary, discriminative, non-application of mind, opposed to the doctrine of legitimate expectation, contrary to the spirit of G.O.Ms.No.98, dt.15-04- 1986 besides violative of the Arts.14 & 16 of the Constitution of India; and ii. consequently, direct the 1st and 2nd respondents to accord approval to the 4th respondent to appoint the petitioner along with other similarly situated land losers as JPAs against 26 left over JPA general vacancies in the Rayalaseema Thermal Power Project (RTPP), Kadapa duly considering the fact that the petitioner was interviewed on 24-01-2014 by the District Selection Committee (DSC) headed by the 5th respondent by according all incidental and consequential benefits on par with JPA appointees in pursuance of supplemental notification dt.17-10-2011”

The grievance of the petitioner is with regard to the non-consideration of the petitioner’s candidature under the land losers quota in the respondent Corporation.

At the time of considering the matter, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation, submits that the issue involved in the lis, had already been dealt with by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.908 of 2023 dated 03.11.2023. The said judgment was served to the learned counsel appearing