(1.) Aggrieved by the impugned proceedings passed by the 3rd respondent dated 29.11.2011 in Lr.No. CE/O&M/RTPP/DGM(HR)/JAO(A)/Adm/B1/FD/D.No. 6042/11, the writ petition is filed for declaring the said proceedings as arbitrary and illegal and for a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for suitable employment in terms Of G.O.Ms.No. 98., Irrigation (Project Wing) Department dated 15.4.1986. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri C. Raghu, learned Standing Counsel for Respondents 1 and 3 and learned Government Pleaser for Revenue for Respondent No. 2.
(2.) Sri C. Raghu, learned Standing Counsel for Respondents 1 and 3, fairly submitted that the 2nd respondent-District Collector is the competent authority to pass orders as per G.O.Ms.No. 98, Irrigation (Project Wing) Department dated 15.4.1986 and it is also submitted that the Government issued orders for providing employment to the displaced persons or their dependents, for which a committee has been constituted in the G.O.Ms.No. 266 dated 19.9.1994 with the Collector as the Chairman of the said committee and that the said committee has to consider the case of the petitioner in terms of G.O.Ms.No. 98 dated 15.4.1986. Be that as it may.
(3.) The 3rd respondent herein has passed impugned orders stating that the petitioner did not submit his application seeking employment under Land Loser Quota within one year from the date of displacement in terms of G.O.Ms.No. 98 dated 15.4.1986 and that his applications were received from revenue authorities on 4.1.93 and 6.8.93 i.e., after lapse of 2 years from the date of displacement. It is to be seen that the petitioner earlier filed W.P.No. 3649 of 1990 and this Court allowed the said writ petition vide its order dated 12.8.1998 and the respondents were directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment for a suitable post in terms of G.O.Ms.No. 98 dated 15.4.1986. Aggrieved thereby, the respondents have preferred an appeal in W.A.No. 1092 of 2000. However, the said appeal had been dismissed when the learned counsel for respondents i.e., the learned counsel for the appellants in the Writ Appeal made a categorical statement before the Division Bench that the respondents herein would consider the case of the petitioner herein for employment as a displaced person land oustee on account of his land having been acquired by the government, without treating him as an earning member, solely on account of his having entered into some contracts with the respondents either in the past or which are still subsisting. The appellate court having taken into consideration the statement made by the learned counsel for the respondents had passed the orders.