M CHINNA RAO Vs. VISAKHAPATNAM STEEL PROJECT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners (two in number) are seeking appointment as Assistant Store Keepers with Visakhapatnam Steel Plant Project under the Scheme of Rehabilitation of the Oustees of land acquired for the said steel Project.

(2.) By a letter dated 4-6-1992 addressed to the Employment Exchange by the 1st respondent the names of nine persons including the present petitioners were communicated as the persons selected for the post of Assistant Store keepers out of those who were sponsored by the Employment Exchange and that their Employment Registration Cards and other details would be forwarded to the Employment Exchange soon after their joining Visakhapatnam Steel Project By a subsequent letter dated 23-10-92 the Steel Plant informed the Employment Exchange that it had been decided not to fill the posts of Assistant Store Keepers earlier notified on 10-9-1991 and that the recruitment be treated as closed. By letter dated 4-3-1997 the Steel Plant sought confirmation from the Employment Exchange whether (1) M. Chinna Rao - Registration No. 1118/90, and (2) V. Sudhakar Rao (the present petitioners) had been retained on the r of the Employment Exchange loss of seniority, which was so Employment Exchange by their letter dated 6-3-1997.

(3.) Six other oustees filed a suit being O.S.No 1309 of 1992 on the file of Principal District Munsif, Visakhapatnam against the Steel Plant (Respondent No.1) seeking direction to be issued to the Steel Plant to appoint the plaintiffs as Assistant Store Keepers as per the 3rd defendant's letter dated 4-6-1992. The Steel Plant refuted its liability to provide employment to all those holding 'R' cards and no assurance was given by the Steel Plant to any land losers. It was further contended by the Visakhapatnam Steel Plant in their written statement that the defendants had notified to the Employment Exchange in the year 1981 about some posts of Assistant Store Keepers during the construction stage of II phase of the Steel Plant and accordingly a written test was conducted in respect of the candidates sent by the Employment Exchange on 16-2-1992 and the persons who were qualified in the written test were interviewed on 13-4-1992 and a selection list was drawn. Further, according to the defendants of the said suit, it was found that there was surplus staff on its Rolls on account of the completion of the II Phase Unit and, therefore, according to them they were under no legal obligation to absorb the surplus staff existing in the Organisation before recruiting the outsiders.