Akkisetty @ Kummari Sekhar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

PASUPALA PARASHURAMUDU,, S/O.KUMMARI YERRANNA @ NAGANNA AGED 41, YEARS, OCC UNEMPLOYEE, R/O.D.NO.3-84, NEHRUNAGAR VILLAGE, PAGIDYALA MANDAL, NANDYALA DISTRICT518 411.

¶13

SUGADASHI NARSA RAO,, S/O.PEDDAKISTANNA, AGED 43, YEARS, OCC UNEMPLOYEE, R/O.D.NO.4-37, NEHRUNAGAR VILLAGE, PAGIDYALA MANDAL, NANDYALA DISTRICT-518 411.

¶14

KOTAKONDA NARASIMHUDU,, S/O.NAGI REDDY, AGED 25, YEARS, OCC UNEMPLOYEE, R/O.D.NO.7-388, NEHRUNAGAR VILLAGE, PAGIDYALA MANDAL, NANDYALA DISTRICT-518 411.

¶15

MALREDDY VENKATA SUBBAMMA,, D/O.VENKATASWAMY, AGED 28, YEARS, OCC UNEMPLOYEE, R/O.D.NO.4-275, NEHRUNAGAR

¶16

2

¶17

VILLAGE, PAGIDYALA MANDAL, NANDYALA DISTRICT518 411.

¶18

...PETITIONER(S)

¶19

AND

¶20

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (WATER RESOURCES DEPT), SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI522 237.

¶21

THE S E NTR TELUGU GANGA PROJECT CIRCLE, KADAPA, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT-516001.

¶22

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KADAPA, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT-516001.

¶23

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶25

1.MANDA VENKATESWARA RAO

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶27

1.GP FOR SERVICES I

¶28

2.GP FOR SERVICES II

¶29

The Court made the following:

¶30

3

¶31

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH WRIT PETITION No.8456 of 2026

¶32

ORDER:

¶33

The present writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

¶34

“….to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring action of the respondents in not considering the case of the Petitioners for appointment under displaced persons quota without reference to date of application and the limitation as per GO Ms No.98 Irrigation (PW) Dept dt.15.04.1986 as pervasive, unlawful and voilative of Art 14, 16, 21, 300-A and 309 of the Constitution of India and direct the respondents to include the names of the Petitioners in the seniority list from the Master list prepared in accordance with the GO Ms No.98 dt.15.04.1986 (i.e for appointments) and provide Jobs to the displaced persons or their dependents….”

¶35

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

¶36

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners’ lands were acquired by the respondents for the purpose of Telugu Ganga Project and awards were also passed and compensation was paid. In fact, the petitioners have lodged a claim for consideration under G.O.Ms.No.98, Irrigation (Project

¶37

4

¶38

Wing) Department, dated 15.04.1986. However, surprisingly, the respondents have not included the names of the petitioners in the list for consideration, though several others were considered and appointments were also provided. The petitioners have made applications on several occasions disputing the action of the respondents in not considering their cases.

¶39

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 23.01.2026, and therefore, the petitioners are also entitled to the same relief.

¶40

Learned counsel for 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

¶41

5

¶42

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.

¶43

In fact, learned counsel for the petitioners also brought to the notice of this Court the observations made 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:

¶44

“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.”

¶45

6

¶46

In view 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 case of the petitioners 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 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.

¶47

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

¶48

_______________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH

¶49

Date: 02.04.2026 Ivd

¶50

7

¶51

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH

¶52

WRIT PETITION No.8456 of 2026