Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 1953 of 2007
PETITIONER:
D.G.M.(HR) P.G. Corpn.of India Ltd.
RESPONDENT:
T. Venkat Reddy & Ors.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13/04/2007
BENCH:
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & D.K. JAIN
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.16600 of 2005)
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
Leave granted.
Appellant questions correctness of the order passed by a
Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court disposing of
the writ appeal filed questioning correctness of the orders
passed by a learned Single Judge. The factual position in a
nutshell is as follows:-
Respondents claimed to be the owner of certain extent of
lands which was acquired by the appellant for the purpose of
establishing a sub-station. Respondents filed a writ petition
seeking a direction to the appellant to consider their cases for
appointment to a suitable post because they answered the
description of displaced persons. They placed reliance on letter
dated 3.1.2005 issued by the appellant. Learned Single Judge
disposed of the writ petition directing the respondents to
consider the cases of the appellant within a period of four
weeks as per the Schemes or Rules framed therein.
Appellant questioned the correctness of the order passed
by learned Single Judge stating that the lands in question
were acquired in 1982 and neither at that point of time of
acquisition or subsequently there was any scheme to provide
any employment to the displaced persons, whose lands were
acquired for the purpose of establishing a sub-station. It was
pointed out that the letter, on which reliance was placed, was
issued in response to the request of one of such alleged
displaced person. The letter clarified the position that no
scheme was prevalent in the appellant-corporation. The stand
of the writ petitioners was to the effect that in almost every
organization controlled by the State, oustees of the lands or
their dependants are provided with employment and the
appellant, being a State-owned Corporation, cannot take a
different stand.
The respondents claimed to be the owner of the land
acquired for establishing sub-station. The Division Bench held
that no scheme exists in the appellant-Corporation to provide
employment to the land oustees or their dependants and that
much time had elapsed since the acquisition. It was, however,
of the view that a semblance of priority can be recognized so
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
far as the respondents are concerned and as and when the
appellant undertakes employment preference was to be given
to respondents. By its very nature, priority pre supposes the
existence of preference, other things being equal. The
respondents cannot be conferred with the benefit of any
exemption or relaxation but whenever the appellant-
Corporation undertakes to any employment to any unskilled
posts, first it shall consider the case of appellants
preferentially, subject to their eligibility and fulfilment to other
conditions. It was further directed that in case they were
found to be qualified and equal to other persons seeking "such
employment", the respondents shall be considered on priority
basis.
According to learned counsel for the appellants there is
no scheme in operation and, therefore, the question of
providing any priority to any land oustee or his dependants
does not arise.
By way of reply, learned counsel for the respondents
submitted that the order of learned Single Judge and the
Division Bench being very innocuous should not be interfered
with. No direction for employment has been given and what
has been directed is its consideration.
At this juncture it would be relevant to take note of what
has been stated by this Court in Butu Prasad Kumbhar and
Others v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Others [1995 Supp
(2) SCC 225]. The apprehension of the learned counsel for the
appellant that the implementation of the High Court’s order
would lead to opening of flood gates to similar writ petitions
does not appear to be of any substance. The direction for
consideration when other persons seek "such employment"
can only mean when somebody else is seeking employment as
a land oustee or his dependant. Obviously, if there is no
scheme, there cannot be any consideration of any prayer for
employment on the basis of land oustees or his dependants.
Therefore, only clarifying the position that the direction of the
High Court relating to "such employment" will be in relation to
persons seeking employment as land oustees or their
dependants . If there is no scheme, the question of giving any
employment would not arise. It is also clear from the order of
the High Court that the respondents cannot be conferred with
any benefit or exemption or relaxation.
Appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.