Y. Suresh Vs The State of Telangana

¶1

t³³⁰⁰ I

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

¶6

WRIT PETITION Nos: 15208 15218 1s267 1s283 15357 15426 AND 1i5457 oF 2018

¶7

W.P. No. 15208 OF 2018

¶8

Between:

¶9

D. Anand, S/ o.Rajamallu, age 45^years, Occ. unemployee,^PJo. H. No.6-7-29, Near Nirmalahruday High School, Subhashnagar, Nizambad District.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 The State of Telangana, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, lrrigation and CAD Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶13

2 The District Collector / Chairman District Selection Committee For Rehabilitation, displaced persons, Nizamabad Distnct, Telangana State.

¶14

3 The Administrator-cum-Chief Engineer, Sri Ram Sagar Prolect^(SRSP),IM.J. Road, Hyderabad.

¶15

4 The Superintending Engineer, Godavari Valley Circle No-'1, Srtram Sagar Pro.ject, Pochampadu, Balakonda Mandal, Nizamabad District,^Telangana state'

¶16

...RESP.NDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia^praying thatⁱⁿ the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith,^{the High Court may be} pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more^particularly one in the nature of Writ of ltrlandamus declaring the Memo No.E227lE2lNZBl2845 dated 5.12.2017 of the respondent No-4 herein as arbitrary,^{illegal,un.iust,} contrary to the settled^principles of law and violative of artrcles^{14 and 21 of the} Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondents to^{consider the} candidature of the^petitioner for any suitable^{post underdisplacedpersons quota} by way of including the^petitioners name in^{the senioritylist in terms of} G.O.lt/s.No.98 dated 15-4-1986 under displaced^{persons quota}

¶18

)

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2018

¶20

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the,)ircumstances stated in the affidavit ftled n support of the petition, the High Cou.t may be pleased to suspend the Merno No.E227lE2lNZBl2845 dated S.12.ZO17 of the respondent No.4 herein to the extent of the petitioner forthwith cons der the case of the petitioner for any suitable post under displaced persons qrota by including the petitioner name in the seniority rist, Nizamabad pending (1i:lposal of main writ petition

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. PADALA PRAVIN KUMAR FOR M/s. N. NAGAVANT PRASOONA

¶22

Counsel forthe Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES I

¶23

W.P. NO: 15218 OF 2018

¶24

Between:

¶25

T,. .Buchanna, S/o.Narsaiah, age 40 years, Occ. ur employee, R/o. New Velmal, New Bopparam, Laxmanchanda Mandal, Adilaba,l bislrict'

¶26

AND

¶27

...PETITIONER

¶28

1 Rl-S^."_"I.,^ll,lS?tion^{p9Ot,.Stateof T.S., TheStare of Telangana, Rep.byits} Pflncrpal Secretary, lffigation^and CAD Department, Ser;retarilt, HyOer)ba'0.

¶29

2 lhe ljrstrict Collector / Chairman, Dislrict Sele.ticn Com'rnittee For

¶30

Rehabilitation displaced persons, Nirmal District, Telan rana State.

¶31

3 Ihe Administrator-cum-Chief Engineer, Sri Ram Saga,: project (SRSp). M J. Road, Hyderabad.

¶32

4 fh-e -^{Superintending.Engineer, GodavariValley Circl,rNo..1.SriramSagar} Project, Pocfampadu, Balakonda Mandal. ADILABAD District, Telanga-na State

¶33

...RESPONDENTS

¶34

Petition under^pnricre 226 of the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affrdavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an appropnate writ, order or direction mrrre particularly one in the nature of writ of fi,4andamus decraring the Memo no.E22lE2lNZBr2gs3 daled 5.12.2017 ot the respondent No.4 herein as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, contrary to the settled principles of law and violative of artrcles .14 and 2l of the constitution of lndia and consequen y direct the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner for any suitabre post under disp aced persons quota

¶35

l

¶36

by way of including the petitioners name in the seniority list in terms of G.O.Ms.No.98 dated 15-4-1986 under displaced persons quota lA NO: 't OF 20'18

¶37

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 to suspend the Memo No.E227lE2lNZBl2853 dated 5.12.2011 ot the respondent No,4 herein to the extent of the petitioner forthwith consider the case of the petitioner for any suitable post under displaced persons quota by including the petitioner name in the seniority list, Nizamabad pending disposal of main writ petition

¶38

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. PRABHAKAR CHIKKUDU FOR M/s. N. NAGAVANI PRASOONA

¶39

Counsel for the Respondents: Ms. B. ANNAPOORNA, AGP FOR SERVICES I W.P. NO: 15267 OF 2018

¶40

Between:

¶41

Gummula Ashok, S/o.Laxmaiah, age 44 years, Occ unemployee, R/o. H.No.27-70 Bestavaripet, Rajura Village, Lokeswaram Mandal, Niramal District

¶42

...PETITIONER

¶43

AND

¶44

1 The State of Telangana, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, lrrigatron and CAD Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶45

2 The District Collector / Chairman District Selection Committee For Rehabilitation, displaced per, The District Collector / Chairman District Selection Committee For Rehabilitation, displaced persons, Nirmal District, Telangana State.

¶46

The Administrator-cum-Chief Engineer, Sri Ram Sagar Prolect (SRSP), tM.J. Road, Hyderabad.

¶47

4 The Superintending Engineer, Godavari Valley Circle No.1 , Sriram Sagar Project, Pochampadu, Balakonda Mandal, ADILABAD District, Telangana State.

¶48

fl ...REspoNDENrs

¶49

Petition under Arlicle 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the fvlemo NO.t227lE2lNZBl2852 daled 5.12.2017 of the respondent No.4 herein as arbitrary, illegal, unjust,

.,4+

t

I

-l

contrary to the settred principres of raw and viorative of rrticres 14 and 21 0r the Constitution of lndia and c onsequently direct the resp,rndents to consider the candidature of the petitioner for any suitable post under Cisplaced persons quota by way of including the petitioners name in the se niority list in terms of G.O.Ms.No.98 dated 1S_4_1986 under displaced persons quota lA NO: 1 oF 2018

¶55

Petrtion under Sectjon^.lSi CpC praying that in th€r circumslances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Oourt may be pleased to suspend the Memo NO.E227lE2lNZBlZgS2 dated 5.1Z.ZO11 of the respondent No.4 herein to the extent of the petitioner forthwith consider the case of the petitioner for any suitable post under displaced persons quota by lncluding the petitioner name in the seniority list, ADTLABAD pending drsposai of main writ petrtion

¶56

Counset for the petitioner: M/s. N. NAGAVANI PRASOONA

¶57

Counsel for the Respondents: Ms. B. ANNAPOORNA, AGp FOR SERVICES I w.P. NO 15283 0 F 2018

¶58

Between:

¶59

AND

¶60

unemployee, R/ o. Sanghvi

¶61

i :stBfl -:i3,?i):t!3i R?ffi, 6?iiii,^o* ...PETITIONER

¶62

The State of lelanoana. Rep.by its principal Secre:ary. t.rigation and CAD uepartment Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶63

¶64

i;,r.frp;iflt"i*+,*["s:.i;:f^!lia"i.,rI",^i.,,

¶65

IiE.i:,8:ii',1*,f "9,i,:i!"f,"ii:""lJ",l"J,Siit[1J+":.,,f J,,f,ffi

¶66

...RESPONDENTS

¶67

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lrd a praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction rt.re particularly one in the nature of writ of [,4andamus declaring the [,4emo No.E227lE2lNZBl2g50 dated

¶68

d#
s

¶69

)

¶70

5.12.2017 of the respondent No.4 herein as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, contrary to the settled principles of law and vrolative of articles 14 and 21 of the constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondents to consider the candidature of the^petitioner for any suitable post under displaced persons quota by way of including the petitioners name in the seniority list in terms of G.o.Ms.No.9g dated 1 5-4-1986 under displaced persons quota

¶71

lA NO: 1 OF 2018

¶72

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 to suspend the Memo No.E227lE2lNZBl2850 dated 5.12.2017 of the respondent No.4 herein to the extent of the petitioner forlhwith consider the case of the petitioner for any suitable post under displaced persons quota by including the petitioner name in the seniority list, ADILABAD pending disposal of main writ petition

¶73

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. PRABHAKAR CHIKKUDU FOR M/s. N. NAGAVANI PRASOONA

¶74

Counsel for the Respondents: Ms. B. ANNAPOORNA, AGp FOR SERVTCES I

¶75

W.P. NO: 15357 OF 2018

¶76

Between:

¶77

U. Rukmeshwar Rao, S/o.Abeda Rao, age 41 years, Occ. unemployee, R/o H.No.11-7 Sanghvi Village, Dilawarpur Mandal, Nirmal District.

¶78

...PETITIONER

¶79

AND

¶80

1 The State of Telangana, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, lrrigation and CAD Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶81

1. The District Collector / Chairman District Selection Committee For Rehabilitation, displaced persons, Nirmal District, Telanqana State.

¶82

1. The Adminiskator-cum-Chief Engineer, Sri Ram Sagar Project (SRSp), M.J.

¶83

ifr3t,flpfiEp"?|is^{Ensineer,GodavariValeycircre No 1, sriram sasar} Project, Pochampadu, Batakonda Mandal, ADILABAD Distiict, Tetangina State

¶84

...RES'.NDENTS

¶85

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Memo NO.E2ZT|E2|NZB|28S1

C

6

t

dated 5.12.20i 7 of the respondent No.4 herein as arbitra_y, illegal, unjust, contrary to the set'ed principres of raw and viorative of articres .r4 and 21 0f the constitution of rndia and consequenry direct the respondenls to consider the candidature of the petit oner for any suitable post under displaoed persons quota by way of including the petitioners name in the seniority ist in terms of G.O.lVls No.98 dated 15_4_1986 under displaced persons quota

¶90

lA NO: 1 OF 2018

¶91

Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circurlsitances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court nay be pleased to suspend the Memo No.E227 tE2rNzB/2851 dated 5.12.2017 ()f the respondent No.4 herein to the extent of the petrtioner forthwith consider- the case of the petitioner for any suitable post under displaced persons quota by including the petitioner name in the seniority list, Nizamabad pending disposal of main writ petition

¶92

Counset for the^petitioner: SRt. pRABHAKAR CHIKKUDU FOF.

¶93

counserror the Respondents: Ms. , lll"JliJ6SfX:X,JfripBIAr,"r. ,

¶94

W.P. NO: 15426 0F 2018

¶95

Between:

¶96

AND

¶97

Y Lin gampally^{.Suresh,.S/o.poshetty,} Village, lvlamada'tvlandal,'Nirmat^{age 33 . years, Occ.} 6i."tri"i'^unempl,;yee, ""'"'', R/o. Kotha ...PETITIONER

¶98

1 The State of Telanoana. Rep.by its principal Secretary, l,rigation - 'r - Y "vi v'|s'! , , and CAD Department, Secret5riat, Hvdbra'bad

¶99

1. rne Urstrict Collector / Chairman, District Selection Committee For

¶100

J, The F;ehabilitation Administrator-cum-ihiet^{displaced persons,.Nirmal} District. Telanqanzr sjtate. Engineer' Sri Ram Sagar- Prc'jeci 1Snse1. ru1..1

¶101

Road, Hyderabad.

¶102

1. The Superintendino Fnoinesl. Godavari Valley circle Nt, .1, 5r,r", arou, Project,^pochampa?u, 6aritonoa uranoai,^-e6r;bAb, State L istrict, Tetansa_na y -A

¶103

.,RESPoNDENTS

¶104

Petitron under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia p_aying that in the circumstances stated in the affrdavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more 6rarticularly one in the nature of Writ of ,,4andamus declaring the Memo E227lE2tl,lzBt,g3Z dated

¶105

7

¶106

5.12.2O17 of the respondent No.4 herein as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, contrary to the settled^principles of law and violative of articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct lhe respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner for any suitable post under displaced persons quota by way of including the petitioners name in the seniority list in terms of G.O.Ms.No.9g dated 'l 5-4-1986 under displaced persons quota

¶107

lA NO: 1 OF 2018

¶108

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 to suspend the Memo E227lE2lNZBl2837 dated 5.12.2011 of the respondent No.4 herein to the extent of the petitioner forthwith consider the case of the petitioner for any suitable post under displaced persons quota by including the petitioner name in the seniority list, Nizamabad pending disposal of main writ petition

¶109

Counsel for the Petitioner: M/s. N. NAGAVANI PRASOONA FOR SRI PRABHAKAR CHIKKUDU

¶110

Counsel for the Respondents: Ms. B. ANNAPOORNA, AGP FOR SERVICES I

¶111

W.P. NO: 15457 OF 2018

¶112

Between:

¶113

Qgslkondq^{MachendraNath,S/o.Maruthi,age 42 years, Occ. unemployee,} R/o.H.No.2-14, Nadukuda Post and Village, Nandipet Mandal, Nizamabad District.

¶114

...PETITIONER

¶115

AND

¶116

1 The State of_Telangana. Rep.by its Principal Secretary, lrrigation and CAD Department. Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶117

2 The District Collector, Chairman District Selection Committee For Rehabilitation, displaced persons, Nizamabad District, Telangana State. The Administrator-cum-Chief Engineer, Sri Ram Sagar Project (SRSP), lV.J. Road, Hyderabad.

¶118

1. The Superintending -^{Engineer, Godavari ValleyCircle No. 1 , SriramSagar} Protect, Pochampa$ Balakonda Mandal, Ni2amabad District, Telangaia ...RESPONDENTS

¶119

Petition under Arlicle 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in

¶120

3

¶121

the nature of Writ of lVlandamus declaring the Memo No.E227lE_2lNZB/2830 dated 5.12.2017 of the respondent No.4 herein as arbitrary, illegal. unjust, contrary to the settled principles of law and violative of articles j4 and 2j of the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondenls to consider [re candidature of the petitioner for any suitable post under displaced person:; quota by way of including the petitioners name in the seniority list in terms of G.O.lvls.No.9g dated 15-4-1986 under displaced persons quota

¶122

lA NO: 1 OF 2018

¶123

Petition under Sectron 151 CPC praying that in the circr nrstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court rnay be pleased to suspend the h,4emo No.E227lE2lNZBl2830 dated 5.12.2O1T c,f the respondent No.4 herein to the extent of the petitioner forthwith consid:r the case of the petitioner for any suitable post under displaced persons quota by including the petitioner name in th(,'seniority list, Nizamabad pending dis,posal of main writ petition

¶124

Counsel for the Petitioner: M/s. N. NAGAVANI PRASOONA FOR SRI P. PRAVIN KUMAR

¶125

Counsel for the Respondents: Ms. B. ANNAPOORNA, AGp FOR SERVICES I

¶126

The Court made the following: COMMON OROER

o

(r

1

C Wp_15208, 15218, 15267, 15283, 15357, 15426, 15457_2018 NBK,I

¶131

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

¶132

WRIT PETITION Nos.15208. 15218. 15267 t5283. 15357. I 5426. and 15457 of20l8

¶133

COMMON ORDER:

¶134

The petitioners agricultural and residential lands were acquired by the Govemment for the purpose of Sri Ram Sagar Project^{(SRSP) in l97l . It is} their case that they are entitled to employment under the Displaced^Persons Quota^{vide G.O.Ms.No.9Sdated15.04.1986,however, theirapplications} have been rejected by the respondent authorities on the^{groundofdelay'}

¶135

l.l As per the averments in the writ petitions, the specific^details of the properties said to have been acquired^{by the} Government^{under SRSP} Project are as follows:

¶136

l.l.l In W.PNo. 15208 of 2018, the agricultural^{land to an} extent of Ac.9-16 guntas in Survey No.ll3,^{and also and house} bearing No.4-74lB, Rathnapur Village of Armoor^Mandal, Nizamabad District.

¶137

1.1.2 In W.PNo.15218 of 2018, the^{agriculturalland and} house bearing Nos.3-96 and 3-98 situated^{at Boppara Village.}

¶138

1.1.3 In W.P.No. 15267 of 2018, the agricultural^{land to an} extent of Ac.2-23 guntas, Ac.l-27^{guntas, Ac.2-04 guntas, and Ac.2-} 30Auntas in Survey Nos.122,^{164, 167, and 213, and also the houses} U.il"g No.5-1, 5-2, 5-3,5-7, to^{an extentof 123.38 sq.mtrsand} 226.20 sq.mtrs situated at^Raj pura^village.

¶139

1.1.4 Ifi W.P.No. 15283 of 20i8, the agricultural^{land to an} extent ol 108.38 sq.mtrs and house bearing^No.5-37.

¶140

n

¶141

2

¶142

w!,15208, r5218, 15267, 15283, 1s357, 15426, 15457_2018 N8K, ]

¶143

\

¶144

1.1.5 In W.P.No.l5357 of 2018, the agricultural land to an extent of Ac.2-06 guntas and Ac.2-08 guntas in Surr''ey Nos. 1360 and 1345, and hor.rse bearing No. l-82/4.

¶145

1.1.6 In W.P.No. 15426 of 2018, the agric-rltural land to an extent of Ac.0-19 guntas in Sy.No. 125, and 1.c.0-01 guntas in Sy.No.l48, andAc.0-08 guntas in Sy.No.354.

¶146

1.1.7 ln W.P.No.l5457 of 2018, the agricultural land and house bearing No.9-50/1, 9-50i2 situated at Nu hypalli village of Nandipet rnandal, Nizamabad District.

¶147

The subject matter, and also the grievance, bcing similar, the writ petitions are taken up lbr disposal by this Commor.r Orccr. For the sake of discussion, the avetments in W.P.No. 15208 of 2018 are raken as reference.

¶148

The case of rhe petitioner, as per the writ aft-rdai rr in W.P.No.l5208 of 2018, is that he (and his family) belongs to the BC-U, communiry, and they lost livelihood when the agricultural land and resrdential property house bearing No.4-14/B and land measuring Ac.9- 16 grs in Survey No. I 13 at Rathnapur Village, Armoor Mandal, Nizamabad Distr ict-were acquired by the Government in 197 I f,or the construction ofthe Sr [{am Sagar Project (SRSP). The family received only meager compensatic,n lrom the Special Deputy Collector, and no alternative employment was p,ovided. Relying on G.O.Ms.No.98, dated I5.04. 1986, issued by the tn.igation (PW) Department, the petitioner contends that the Govemment had committed to offering 50%o ofvacancies in certain junior-level posts ro displaced persons or their dependents, provided that there is no eaming nt,rrnber in the family.

¶149

t

¶150

3

¶151

wp-r5Zo8, 152lE, 15257, 1S283, 75357 , t5426, 15457 _2O1a NB(, J

¶152

3.t The petitioner submitted an application to the 2nd respondent on 07 .09.2016 referencing the family's loss of rand and property (including house numbers 9-50ll and 9-5012) and asserting that no member of his family has a govemment job. However, his application was rejected vide Memo dated 5.12.2017, citing the time limir under G.O.Ms.No.9g; and Memo dated 24.08.1987 contending that no new applications from displaced persons would be entertained beyond the prescribed time limit. The petitioner filed o.A.No.2297 of 1996 before the Andhra Administrative Tribunal, which, by order dated 26.04.1996, directed the respondent authorities to consider his candidature, however, his application was again rejected on I5.05.2006. He subsequentty submitted another application on 8.9.2017, which was rejecred by referring ro Memo dated 14.05.2010.

¶153

3.2 Petitioner contends that in O.A.No.7917 of 2003, the Tribunal set aside an earlier rejection dated 28.03.2000, aflinning that candidates displaced prior to the issuance of c.o.Ms.No.9g were not bound by the time limit of one-year, and accordingly directed the authorities to consider such candidates, including the petitioneq without referring to the date of application. The Govemrnent challenged similar decisions arising from O.A.No. 10637 of 2009 by filing W.p.No.2436 of 2011. This Court, by judgment dated 30.06.2017 dismissed the writ petition, by upholding the Tribunal's findings that the Governmenr's policy allowed such relaxation and there was no injustice in directing consideration ofthe applicant,s claim.

¶154

3.3 The matter escalated further when the State approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing S.L.p. (Civil) No. 1430g of 2011, and the SLP was dismissed the Supreme court by stating that it was not inclined to interfere under Article 136 of the constitution. petitioner brings to the Court's atteyirin a letter d,ated 30.07.2014 issued by Respondent No.2,

/

r

4

Wp 5.108, 15218, 15267, 15283, 15357. r!426, 15457_2018 N8K, J

¶159

which explicitly recognized the final judicial position that no limitation period would apply 1br awardees displaced prior to G.O.Ms.No.9S dated 15.04.1986; and in spite of this judicial position, his application was again rejected through Memo dated 05.12.2017, while similarll :,ituated persons have recently been appointed under the same policy.

¶160

3.4 The petitioner contends that the responder ts; countered his claims by alleging that the petitioner was ineligible under the displaced persons quota due to expiry ol time limit mentioned in crrrlicr government orders. However, the petitioner contends that such a positiolt has been repeatedly overruled by competent judicial bodies, inclurlirg the Tribunal, this Court, and the Supreme Court, thereby rendering the rc spondents' stance baseless and contrarv to established law.

¶161

3.5 Petitioner further contends that the rejection of his application on the grounds of an expired deadline is no1 only con:rary to judicial precedents but also to the government's own findings ancl actions in similar cases. The petitioner asse(s that unless directed br this Court, the respondents will continue to unjustly deny him rh( oppoftunity for employment, despite his legal entitlement as a displa:ed person under G.O.Ms.No.98. Petitioner therefore prays for the issurLncc of a Writ of Mandamus declarin.g Memo dated 05. 12.201 7 as itlegal ar rd unconstitutional and for a direction to include his name in the seniority Iist lor appointment under the displaced persons quota. He submits that he has no altemative remedy and has not approached any other forum for the samc relief.

¶162

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; and lerrrned Government Pleader lor Services-I. Peruscd the record.

¶163

t I

¶164

5

¶165

wp rs2o8, r5218, 15267, 152E1, 15357, 15425, 15457 2018 NAK, .,

¶166

L

¶167

Leamed counsel tor the petitioner essentially contends that the rejection of petitioner's application for employment under the displaced persons quota was arbitrary, unconstitutional, and in violation of his fundamental rights under Articles l4 and 2l of the constitution of India.

¶168

5.1 It is contended that the petitioner and his family was displaced in 1971due to the acquisition of their agricultural and residential property, and the Government under G.O.Ms.No.98, dated I5.04. 1986, pledged to allocate 50Yo of certain junior-level posts to disptaced. persons or their dependents, especially when there were no other eaming members in the family, and the petitioner quatifies under these criteria, as no member of his family holds a govemmenr job.

¶169

5.2 It is contended that the petitioner's application has been rejected by the respondents through Memo dated 05.12.2017, citing expiry of prescribed time limit under G.O.Ms.No.98 and relared clarificatory memos, notably Memo dated 24.08.1987 and Memo dated 14.05.2010, by stating that no new applications from displaced persons could be accepted decades after the original displacement.

¶170

5.3 It is contended that that time limitations do not apply to persons displaced before the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.98. FIe references several key legal decisions, and in support of this contention, namely, the O.A.No.229711996, wherein the Tribunal had already direcred the respondents in 1996 to consider his case; that in O.A.No.791712003, the Tribunal held that the one-year limitation could nor be applied ro those displaced before 1986; that this view was reaffirmed in O.A.No.l0637l2OOg (upheld by this Court in W.P.No.2436l2011 through a decision dated 30.06.2017); that the Special Leave Petition (SLP No.14308/201l) filed by

¶171

J

¶172

6

¶173

w! 15208, Is218, 15267,15283, 1535 7. 15426, 15457 2018 N8K,I

¶174

the Government challenging this ruling was dismissed by th,: Supreme Court on 04.07.201 I , affinning the relaxation of the time limit.

¶175

5.4 Furthermore, the petitioner cites a letter daterl 10.07.2014 lrom Respondent No.2, rvhich recognized that no limitation period applied to displaced persons prior to 1986, thus confirming the interT,rr:tation of the law in favour of the petitioner. He also highlights that similar y situared persons have been recently appointed under the same scheme. ivher.eas his case continucs to be unfa.irly rejected.

¶176

Mrs. B. Annapurna, learned Assistant Govemment trleader, appearing on behalf of Irrigation & CAD Department, based on thc counter-aftidavit filed by the respondent, contends that the petilio.rcr's request for employment under the displaced persons quota-based o,r the acquisition of agricultural land and residential property belonging to his lamily lbr the Sri Ram Sagar Project (SRSP) in 1971-is both time-barre,J and procedurally invalid. The crux of the respondent's position is thlt the petitioner's application dated 8.9.2017, filed 46 years alter the actual displacement, is grossly belated and falls outside the scope of existing lovernment orders and clarificatory memos goveming such employment clairns.

¶177

I According to the respondent, the petitioner. is seeking employment under G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 15.4.1986, a piovemmenr order that was specifically designed to offer jobs to persons displaced due to irrigation projects, provided they submitted their applications within one year from the date of actual displacement. This critical condition is explicitly

¶178

stated in Para 4(iii) of the said G.O., which also tives preference to applicants whose houses and land were acquired. Thc r.rr.der required all

¶179

I

¶180

7

¶181

wp..152O4, 152IE, 15267, l52A), 15157, 15426, 15457-2018 NAK,.'

¶182

t

¶183

applications to be made to the District Collector, who would then forward them to the project authorities.

¶184

6.2 Recognizing the disadvantage faced by those displaced prior to the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.98, the Government issued Memo dated 24.8.1987, which relaxed the one-year application deadline only for those displaced before 15.4.1986. However, the respondent emphasizes that this relaxation did not imply that applications could be filed indefinitely. To address the growing number of late and decades-old claims, the Govemment later issued Memo dated 22.12.2005, cautioning that applications should not be enterlained if received long after displacement. This memo stated that although a brief window was allowed for those who misscd the original oneyear limit, the authorities should not go on receiving such applications after the lapse ofdecades.

¶185

6.3 It is contended by the leamed Assistant Govemment Pleader that this position was reinforced through Memo dated 14.5.2010,^which clarified the cutoff period and directed that the Applications received after the notified cutoff dates must be rejected outright, and that no new applications should be accepted, as the deadlines under both G.O.Ms.No.98 dated 15.04.1986 and Memo dated 24.08.1987 had expired long ago. It^is contended that on this basis, the respondent issued a speaking order^vide Memo dated 5.12.2017 rejecting the petitioner's application^for employment. The Memo stated that since the petitioner's^{request came after} a 46-year delay, it was not entertainable under the^{prevailing legaland} administrative framework.

¶186

6.4 Adverting to the^judiciat precedents cited by the^petitioner such as O.A. No.79l712003^(order dated 16.7.2007)^{and O.A.}

¶187

l

¶188

8

¶189

Wf 15208, 15218, 15267,15283, 15351 , 15426, 15457 _2074 NBK, ]

¶190

No. 10637/2009^(order dated 30.6.2010) of the TriburLal)-wherein the Tribunal had directed authorities to consider applications "in'espective of limitation", the lean.red Assistant Government Pleader c,trrtends that these orders were rendered without the benefit of later clarifications, specificalty Memo No.l7498, dated 22.12.2005, and Memo No. I 1606, dated 14.5.2010. And these memos, rvhich were either not presented or \rr(ir3 issued after the earlier rulings, significantly altered the interpretation hy speci$,ing strict timelines and baning new applications.

¶191

6.5 Leamed Assistant Covemment Pleader citcs the judgment ot' the Tribunal in O.A. No.2080/20I3, which dealt with a s;imilarly delayed application frled after 28 years of displacement. In the said O.A.No.2080/2013. the Tribunal held that the applicant was nor entitled to be considered undcr G.O.Ms.No.98 due to the cutoff established by the later memos. The^judgrnent in O.A. No.2080/2013 concluderl that no inference of unlimited application period could be drawn and the relaxation granted by Memo dated 24.8.1987 was not open-ended and the sarne had to be read in conjunction rvith the later clarifications issued vidc Menro No.37498, dated22.12.2005, and Memo No. I1606, dated 14.5.2010.

¶192

6.6 Furthermore, the leamed Assistant Govemment pleader contends that thc pctitioner is attempting to misuse earlicr judicial decisions by ignoring these subsequent and binding clarifications. It is also contended that allowing such outdated claims would not only contradict government policy but also undenrinc the purpose of establishing outolf periods for displaced persons' employment claims. Additionally, bi, filing the writ petition after a long lapse and attempting to claim berrefits well after the expiration of alt deadlines, the petitioner demonstrarr:s a lack of due diligence, ilnot a nralafide intent to exploit administratir,: gaps. i \

\ \

w

9

Wp r5208, 15218, 1s257, ts28l, 15351, 15426, 15457_2018 NBK, ]

L

\ I

i I

Having considered the respective contentions and perused the record, it is to be noted that admittedly the petitioner's family was displaced as far back as I 971 due to land acquisition for the Sri Ram Sagar Project, resulting in the loss of agricultural land measuring Ac.9- I 6 gts and residential structures. While the Govemment did issue G.O.Ms.No.9S dated 15.04. 1986 to address such displacement, and initially prescribed a one-year timit for submining applications, this restricted time limit was later relaxed through Memo dated 24.08.1987, which allowed persons displaced prior to the G.O. to apply without being bound by the original one-year deadline.

¶201

7.1 The petitioner's application, though filed on 08.09.2017, relies not only on this 1987 relaxation but also on the^{precedents, namely} O.A.No.79l712003 and O.A.No.10637/2009, wherein the^Tribunal categorically held that the time limitation in G.O.Ms.No.98^{could not be} apptied to persons displaced prior to its issuance. These decisions^were upheld by this Court in W.P.No.2436120ll. Furtheq the Hon'ble Supreme Courl, in S.L.P. (Civil) No.14308/2011, chose not to^{interlere,thereby} affirming the legal position that no limitation would apply to such^displaced persons. Furtheq the Memo No.37498 dated 22.12.2005 and Memo No.l1606 dated 14.05.2010 were either not brought to the Court's^aftention or were not found to operate retrospectively to nultiff earlier decisions.

¶202

7.2 Further, the petitioner has rightly pointed out the inconsistent application of the policy, noting that similarly situated^{persons have been} considered and appointed under the same displaced^{personsquotain recent} years. Such selective enforcement undermines the principle of equality before the law under Article l4 and thereby^such actions^{are discriminatory} and arbitrary. The petitioner's land was^acquired for^{publicpurpose;} however, he has not beefiprovided @u,^{employmentas assured while} 'r

\ I

I

L

'l

x

acquisition. His^{rcpeatedrepresentations,b(-'e:innillgwith} O.A.No.22971^{199(r,shotv consistentpursuit of his clainr''hereby the claim} cannot be dismissed^{sunrmarily on the groundof delay or laches'}

¶209

T.3 ln that^view of^{the matter,this Court is of the considered} opinion that the^{petitioner'scase deserves considerationunder the displaced} persons category contcrnplated^{under G.O'Ms'No'98 ard the subsequent} relaxation issued in^{1987, and the rejectionof his applic:ationvide Memo} dated 05.12.2017 is^{thereforeliable to be set aside, in vi:rv of the fact and} circumstances^{of the presentcase.}

¶210

Accordingly, the^{impugnedMemodated 05'12'2011' is set aside' and} the writ petition is^{disposed of with a direction to thr: respondentsto} reconsider the^{pctitioner's applicationafresh, withoutre [erence to the one-} year limitation, subjccr to^{verificarion of other eligibilitv criteria underthe} displaced persons^{quota, w'ithin a period of fourmontlLs from the date of} receipt of this order.^{The writ petition Nos. 15218, l5:l('7,15283,15357,} 15426, and t5457 ol20^{l8 also stand disposedof in 1rt: sameterms' No} costs. Miscellaneous^{petitions pending,if any, shatl stand closed'}

¶211

SD/. SRI^M. JAWAHAR^REDDY ASSiISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

(-*

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Principal Secretary,^{lrrigationand CADDerpartment, Secretariat'}

¶217

T.S., Hyderabad

¶218

2 Th; 6istrict Cotlector /^{ChairmanDistrict Selection Committee For} - nefraOitiiation, displaced persons, Nizamabad DisIict, Tr'.langa1q^Slell. .. , 3. The Administrator-cum-Chief^{Engineer,Sri Ram Sagar Prolect(SRSP)'M J} Road, Hyderabad. . .. .. ..

¶219

Road, Hyderabad. . .. .. ..

¶220

q ihe^{-sufienniending} Engineer, Godavari Valley Circle N-o 1 Sriram^Sqgar erole&,' Pochampa-du,^{6alakonda Mandal, NizamabalDistrict,Telan$hna}

¶221

S. ine State.^-superintend ing^{Engineer, GodavariValley Circle No 1, Sriram Sagar} Project,' Pochampa-du, 6alakonda^{trilandal,ADILABAD Dtstrict,Telangana} State

¶222