K Venkata Narayana Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

K VENKATA NARAYANA, S/O AVULAIAH@ AVULAIAH GARI VENAKAIH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/O D.AGRAHARAM VILLAGE, Z KOTHAPALLI POST, B.MATAM MANDAL, YSR DISTRICT.

¶10

K. ARUNA, D/O AVULAIAH @ AVULAIAH GARI VENAKAIH AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/0 CHENNAMPALLI (V), BADVEL MANDAL, YSR DISTRICT

¶11

...PETITIONER(S)

¶12

AND

¶13

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES ( R AND R) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI,GUNTUR DISTRICT.522237.

¶14

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, YSR DISTRICT, KADAPA 516501.

¶15

THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, N.T.RTG. PROJECT, MAMILLAPALLI, KADAPA DISTRICT 516504.

¶16

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶17

The Court made the following ORDER:

¶18

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

¶19

“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 action of the Respondents deleting the name of the petitioner as arbitrary, illegal contrary to the spirit of G.O.Ms.No. 98 Irrigation, (Project. Wing) Dept dated 15.4.1986, Memo. No. 480/LAR(2)87-21 AND CAD dated 24.8.1987 and Memo No. 3083755/ICD01/5434/2025-RR dated 23.12.2025 and the scheme of 2013 Land acquisition Act, and Article 14, 19, 21 and 300Aof the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to immediately provide employment to one of the petitioners preferably to the 1st Petitioner as per the representations dt. 6.4.2015 and 10.12.2025 and 9.1.2026 in appropriate position according to qualification and age and grant ….”

¶20

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

¶21

The grievance of the petitioners is that the action of the respondents in deleting the name of the petitioner is contrary to the G.O.Ms.No.98, Irrigation (Project Wing) Department, dated 15.04.1986, Memo No.480/LAR(2)/87-21 and CAD, dated 24.08.1987, Memo No.3083755/ICD01/5434/2025-RR, dated 23.12.2025 and the scheme of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013. Therefore, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to provide employment to one of the petitioners, by

¶22

considering the representations dated 06.04.2015, 10.12.2025 and 09.01.2026.

¶23

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in similar facts and circumstances, this Court has already granted relief in W.P. No.33135 of 2023 by order dated 23.01.2025, and therefore the petitioners are also entitled to the same relief.

¶24

4 The petitioners further brought to the notice of this Court that under G.O.Ms.No.98, Irrigation (Project Wing) Department, dated 15.04.1986, the condition of one-year limitation prescribed therein cannot be insisted upon, in view of Government Memo No.480-LAR (2)/87-2, dated 24.08.1987, the orders of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.7917 of 2003 dated 16.07.2007, the judgment of the 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 of 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.

¶25

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

¶26

“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.”

¶27

On perusal of the directions of the Division Bench of this Hon’ble High Court in W.P.No.2436 of 2011, this Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to consider the representations of the petitioners dated 06.04.2015, 10.12.2025 and 09.01.2026 for appointment as per G.O.Ms.No.98, Irrigation (Project Wing) Department, dated 15.04.1986, and to pass appropriate orders. The said exercise may 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.

¶28

Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed.

JUSTICE D RAMESH

klk

09.03.2026

199

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH