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.