M. RAMADEVI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition challenging the legality of the impugned order dtd. 17/18/10/2016 passed by the respondent No.3 in proceedings bearing No.ED (BT) BHOO SAM / PIA / 1538 and also has sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to consider her application seeking employment under the land loosers quota strictly in compliance of the orders passed by this Court in W.P. No.60386/2011 disposed of on 20/6/2016 vide Annexure - K.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

(3.) Petitioner's father's land bearing Sy. No.140A and Sy. No.144A situated at Kudithini village, Ballari Taluk was acquired for the purpose of establishing thermal power station at Kudithini by the respondent - Corporation. As per the scheme floated by the respondent - Corporation, the petitioner had filed an application seeking employment under the scheme dtd. 24/8/2006 floated by the respondent, wherein the training program was provided whereunder the land loosers could also apply. At that stage, the petitioner was unmarried. Subsequently, yet another scheme was floated by the Corporation on 20/8/2009, wherein one of the condition was that married daughters of the family of land loosers are not entitled to seek employment. Even under the said scheme, the petitioner had made an application. The Corporation had issued an endorsement dtd. 13/10/2010 rejecting the petitioner's claim for appointment on the ground that the petitioner was married daughter. The same was questioned by the petitioner before this Court in W.P. No.60386/2011 which was disposed of by this Court on 20/6/2016 and the respondents were directed to consider the petitioner's application filed under the 2006 scheme afresh. Thereafter, the respondent - Corporation has issued the impugned endorsement dtd. 17/18/10/2016, once again rejecting the petitioner's application seeking appointment. It is under these circumstances, the petitioner is before this Court.