R Harikrishna Reddy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

¶1

1

¶2

APHC010250782026

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3208] (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

WEDNESDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 13166/2026

¶8

Between:

¶9

R HARIKRISHNA REDDY, S/O RAJU.SUBBA REDDY, AGED 39 YEARS MADHAVARAM-I (VILLAGE) SIDHOUT MASNDAL, YSR DISTRICT.

¶10

S.CHENNAIAH, S/O S. CHENNAKESAVULU, AGED 42 YEARS R/O D.NO. 7/6A, SKR NAGAR, MADHAVARAM-1 SIDHOUT, YSR DISTRICT. SI.NO. 881

¶11

S.VENKATARAMI REDDY, S/O SAGILI ANKI REDDY, AGED 47 YEARS R/O H.NO.4/145, KAPU STREET, MADHAVARAM-1 SIDHOUT, YSR DISTRICT. SI.NO. 715

¶12

B.VENKATA SUBBAIAH, S/O BITTA VENKATASUBBAIAH AGED 39 YEARS, R/O D.NO 1/91, PARVATHIPURAM, MADHAVARAM, SIDHOUT MANDAL, YSR DISTRICT

¶13

.VENKATASUBBAIAH, S/O NARASIMHULU, AGED 57 R/O D.NO. 1-128, JYOTHI VILLAGE, SIDHOUT MANDAL, YSR DISTRICT. SI.NO. 1055

¶14

B.VENKATA RAMANAIAH, S/O B. VENKATAIAH, AGED 46 YEARS R/O D.NO 3/67, KOTHAGAJULAPALLE, RACHAYAPETA POST, GOPAVARAM MANDAL. YSR DISTRICT. SI.NO. 828

¶15

2

¶16

E.NARASIMHULU, S/O VENKATAIAH AGED 37YEARS, R/O RAMAPURAM VILLAGE, T.SANDRAPALLI POST, GOPAVARAM MANDAL, YSR DISTRICT. SI.NO. 1039

¶17

G.C.VENKATASUBBAIAH, S/O SUBBARAMAIAH AGED 56 R/O 6-57, SKR NAGAR, SIDHOUT MANDAL, YSR DISTRICT

¶18

S.SIVASANKAR REDDY, S/O MALLEM KONDAIAH @ MLLEM KONDAREDDY AGED 40 YEARS, R/O D.NO 4-31173/1, GATTUPALLI PUNARAVASA COLONY, GOPAVARAM MANDAL. BADVEL MUNICIPALITY, YSR DISTRICT.

¶19

T.RAMAMOHAN, S/O T VENKATASWAMY, AGED 40 YEARS R/O D.NO 3/87, GOLLAPALLI VILLAGE, KALVAPALLI POST. GOPAVARAM MANDAL, YSR DISTRICT.

¶20

P.PENCHALAIAH, S/O P.YARA NAGAIAH AGED 55 YEARS, R/O D.NO 9/1, KOTHA REKALAKUNTA, GOPAVARAM MANDAL YSR DISTRICT. SI NO. 991

¶21

S.BALAKRISHNA, S/O SRINGARAPU. CHENNAKESAVULU, AGED 36 YEARS R/O D.NO.3/120, YERRACHERUVUPALLI,TANGARURU POST NANDALURU MANDAL YSR DISTRICT. SI.NO. 1000 .

¶22

B. OBUL REDDY, S/O RAMI REDDY, AGED 36 YEARS, KALUVOI (V M), PADAMARA VEEDHI, SPS NELLORE DISTRICT. SI.NO.1461

¶23

Y.PENCHALAIAH, S/O CHINNA NARASAIAH, AGED 37 YEARS R/O KOTHA REKALAKUNTA VILLAGE, GOPAVARAM MANDAL, YSR DISTRICT

¶24

D.KESAVA, S/O NARAYANA, AGED 50 YEARS, R/O D.NO 616/477, VIDYANAGAR, BADVEL, YSR DISTRICT. SI NO. 1000

¶25

3

¶26

M.VENKATA RAMANA, S/O SUBBANNA, AGED 47 YEARS, R/O D.NO 7/7/177, VIDYANAGAR, BADVEL, YSR DISTRICT. SI NO.1010

¶27

A.PULLAIAH, S/O GOPAIAH AGED 44 YEARS, R/O.D.NO 1/134, ATIURU, YSR DISTRICT. SI.NO. 919

¶28

M.NAGENDRAPRASAD, S/O CHENNAIAH, AGED 31 YEARS, R/O D.NO 6/7/120, VIDYANAGAR, BADVEL, YSR DISTRICT. SI NO. 1046

¶29

U. MOSHE, S/O SAMUEL, AGED 49 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 628, UPPUTURU VILLAGE, S.VENKATAPURAM COLONY, ATIURU MNADAL, YSR DISTRICT.

¶30

MERIGA PENCHALAIAH, S/O VENKATA NARASAIAH, AGED 55 MANGUPALLI POST, ANANTHASAGARAM MANDAL, NELLORE DISTRICT. SI.NO. 1544

¶31

RAGHAVA VENKATESWARLU, S/O NARASAIAH@NARASARAJU, AGED 43 YEARS, ANJANEYA NAGAR, GOPAVARAM MANDAL, YSR DISTRICT. SI.NO. 836

¶32

PAPUDIPPU ARUNAMMA,, D/O KONDAREDDY, AGED 42 YEARS,S. RAMAPURAM VILLAGE, GOPAVARAM MANDALAM,YSR DISTRICT

¶33

CHINDUKURI VENKATA RAMANA, S/O YANADI SETTY, AGED34 YEARS, DUDEKUL VEEDHI BADVEL TOWN, YSR DISTRICT.

¶34

...PETITIONER(S)

¶35

AND

¶36

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES ( R R) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI,GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶37

4

¶38

THE CHIEF ENGINEER, NTR TELUGU GANGA PROJECT, TIRUPATI, CHITTOOR( TIRUPATI) DISTRICT.

¶39

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, YSR DISTRICT, KADAPA

¶40

THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, SOMASILA PROJECT, DARGAMITTA, SPS NELLORE DISTRICT

¶41

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶42

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to pas orders in exercise of extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the respondents inaction in providing employment to the petitioners in terms of G.O.Ms.No. 98 Irrigation Department Dt. 15.4.1986 though their names were included in the list as arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory and violative of right to life. Article 14, 19, 21, 300 A of the of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to consider their candidature for employment at par with the candidates mentioned in Memo No. 7477081/R R/A2/20237 (C.No. 2116015) dt. 30.6.2025 andProgs. SE/SKDGNSS/KDP/AB/EC/AB/CE.2/E20/260 M/259 M 259 M dt. 22.4.2026. grant such other relief as may be deemed just and necessary in the interest of justice.

¶43

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶44

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased leased to direct the respondents to consider petitioners’ candidature for providing employment in terms of G.O.Ms.No. 98 Irrigation Department Dt. 15.4.1986 by extending the benefit at part with the candidates mentioned in Memo 7477081/R& R/A2/2023-7 (C.No. 2116015) dt. 30.6.2025 pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass

¶45

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶46

5

¶47

1.KASA JAGANMOHAN REDDY

¶48

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶49

1.GP FOR SERVICES II

¶50

The Court made the following:

¶51

ORDER:

¶52

This Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of the respondents in not providing the employment to the petitioners in terms of G.O.Ms.No.98 Irrigation Department dated 15.04.1986 under displaced persons scheme.

¶53

The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners’ parents have lost their agricultural properties for the purpose of construction of Somasila project. The competent authority issued the displacement certificates to the petitioners. The lands of the petitioners’ father were acquired and the award was also passed by the respondents pursuant to the G.O.Ms.No.98 Irrigation (Project Wing) Department dated 15.04.1986 and compensation was paid. In fact, the petitioners lodged claim for consideration under G.O.Ms.No.98, Irrigation (Project Wing) Department, dated 15.04.1986. But, surprisingly, the respondents have not included the names of the petitioners for consideration in the list, though several others were considered and appointments were also provided. The petitioners

¶54

6

¶55

have made applications on several occasions disputing the action of the respondents in having considered some and not having considered the petitioners.

¶56

The petitioners have brought to the notice of this Court that under G.O.Ms.No.98, Irrigation (Project Wing) Department, dated 15.04.1986, without reference to the condition of one year limitation imposed in G.O.Ms.No.98 by taking into consideration the Government Memo No.480- LAR (2)/87-2, dated 24.08.1987 and the orders of A.P.A.T made in O.A.No.7917/2003, dt.16-07-2007 and Judgment of Hon’ble High Court in W.P.No.2436 of 2011, dated 08.02.2011 which was confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP.No.14305/2011 by order, dated 04.07.2011 and also the common Judgment of this Court in W.P.(AT) No.174 of 2021 and batch, dated 13.12.2022.

¶57

In fact, the learned counsel for the petitioners also brought to the notice of this Court the observations in W.A.No.356 of 2023. Certain writ petitions, wherein rejection of the cases of the petitioners under G.O.Ms.No.98, Irrigation (Project Wing) Department, dated 15.04.1986, was challenged, were allowed, and

¶58

7

¶59

the appeals preferred therein were disposed of with the following observation:

¶60

“In this Connection it is respectfully submitted that recently this Court rendered an elaborate Judgment on the subject matter in W.P.(AT) No.174 of 2021 and batch, dated 13.12.2022 by considering all the earlier Judgments passed by APAT and the D.B. of this Hon’ble High Court in W.P.No. 2436 of 2011 which was confirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.14305 of 2011, dated 04.07.2011, directing the Respondents to provide employment to the Petitioners therein by adopting the procedure prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 15.04.1986 and also in respect of other candidates, who now remain out of employment. I am also similarly situated and identically placed to the petitioners therein and entitled for appointment in terms of G.O.Ms.No.98. Hence, this Writ Petition.”

¶61

In view of the directions of the Division Bench of this Hon’ble

¶62

High Court in W.P.No.2436 of 2011, this Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to consider the cases of the petitioners for appointment as per G.O.Ms.No.98, Irrigation (Project Wing) Department, dated 15.04.1986, by considering their seniority and by considering the representations, if any, made by the petitioners, and to pass appropriate orders. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶63

8

¶64

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand

closed.

JUSTICE D.RAMESH

Date:06.05.2026 GK

9