B.Ramulu Vs The Superintending Engineer

¶1

[³³⁰⁰¹

¶2

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

¶3

TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULY O THOUSAND AND TWENTY^FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH^BHEEMAPAKA

¶6

WRIT P TION NO: 4132OF 2019

¶7

Between:

¶8

B.Ramulu S/o Savaranna, aged about^{50 years, Unemployee,R/o.Peddapadu} village, Chinnacintarevula^posl, Oharoor^{Mandal,Jogulamba-GadwalDistrict. (Old} Mahabubnagar Dist)

¶9

...PETIT!ONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The Superintending Engineer,^{P.J.P.Circle-1,Gadwal,Jogulamba-Gadwal} Dist.

¶12

The District Collector Selection^{Committee, Jogulamba-GadwalDist.}

¶13

The Chief Engineer, I & CAD,^{NSP & AMR, SLBC Project,Gaganvihar, 6th} Floor, M.J.Road, Nampally,^Hyderabad.

¶14

The State of Telangana, rep., by^{its Principal Secretary,I & CADDept.'} Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution^{of lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filedtherewith,the High Court maybe} pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more^particularly one in the nature of^writ of Mandamus declare the impugned Lr.^{No.SE/PJP/ABlEC.2l3841d1.25.03.2011} and Lr.No.SE/PJPtABlEC2l334 dt.18.05.2017^issued by the lst^respondent mechanically rejected petitioner claim for appointment under displaced^category and quash the same as illegal, and ignorance of the rulingⁱⁿ O.A.No.7917 of²⁰⁰³ confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.No.2436 of 2011 and Apex Courtⁱⁿ SLP No.14305 of 2011 and consequently direct the respondents. to consider the

¶17

claim of the petitioner for appointment to any suitable post under displaced persons category as number of similarly placed persons above him and below him were appointed with all consequential benefits.

¶18

lA NO:^'l OF 2019

¶19

Petiticn under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit liled in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the respondonts to consider the claim of the writ petitioner or one of the his family members for appointment to any suitable post under displaced persons quota being Awardee of 1985 by suspending the impugned Lr.No.SE/pJp/ABlEC.2l3A41 dt. 25.03.2011 and Lr. No.SElPJPlABlEC2l334 dt.18.05.2017 issued by the 1"t respondent pending disposal of the above W.P.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI G. BALARAIGAIAH

¶21

Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR SERVTCES - I

¶22

The Court ntade the following: ORDER

¶23

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAI{A U'RIT PETITION No.4132 of 2Ol9 ,

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

The petitioner challenges the rejection of his claim for employment under the displaced persons category through letters dated 25.O3.2O11 and 18.05.2017. His father's land (0.11 acres) in Chintharevula village was acquired in 1985 for the PJP Project, causing loss of livelihood. Based on G.O.Ms.No.98 (1986) and official assurances, he applied for employment in 1989 and was included in the eligible list, with certificate verification done in 1992-93. Despite this, his claim was rejected in 2011, wrongly stating the application was filed only in 2OO4 and was timebarred. The petitioner argues this is incorrect and cites judgments confirming the one-year limit does not apply to those displaced before 1986. A reconsideration request in 2017 was also rejected on the same erroneolrs grounds. Therefore, he seeks a direction to the respondents to consider his claim for appointment, as many similarly placed candidates have been appointed.

¶26

Heard Sri G.Balarangaiah, learned c<lunsel for petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-[ for respondents. Perused the record.

¶27

NEKJ W.P. No.4132 of 2019

¶28

2

¶29

Learned counsel for^{the respondent filed a counter affidavit} stating that G.O.Ms.No.98^{(1986) reserves jobs for displaced} persons, requiring applications within one^{year of displacement.} This deadline was relaxed^{by a 1987 memo for those displaced} before 1986. Only^{persons who lost substantial cultivableland} affecting their livelihood^{qualify, not those who lost only houses. [t} is stated that.^{petitioner's land was left with 4O guntas, whichis} very much available^{to him to carry on his livelihood, and the} Government^{paid compensation to the petitioner'sfather as per} the law prevrilling^{at that time. It is also relevantto submit that} ignorance of the law^{is not excusable, and in the instantcase, the} petitioner and his father^{knew very well about the rejectionof their} candidature. The^{petitioner's father's small landholding \ ras} acquired in t985^{with compensation,but the petitioner's2004 job} application was^{rejected as late. Courts have upheldthat} disptacement means^{significant loss impacting livelihood.The} petitioner's delay and^{failure to meet the conditions justified the} rejection, and the^{government'spolicy is final. Therefore, the} petition lacl:s merit and^{shouldbe dismissed.}

¶30

Learnr:d counsel for petitioner filed a reply affidavit stating that G.O.Ms.No.9B (1986) provides employment reservations^for

¶31

FIffiS_qflii-5t^t '

¶32

NBIU W.P. 1,10.4132 of 2019

3

I I

t t

,t'

displaced persons, with a one-year application^{period. A 1987} memo relaxed this time limit only^{for those displaced after 1986.} The petitioner's 0.11-acre land was^{acquired in1989 for the} Jurala Project, and he applied for employment^{from 1989 onward,} submitting all required certificates.^{Despite multipterequestsand} interviews between 1992 and 2OL7,^{he was not appointed.} Belonging to the B.C. category and^{without other income, the} petitioner seeks^justice under the G.O.Ms.No.98^{scheme, but the} issue remains unresolved despite official^{communications.}

¶38

Considering the submissions of both^{learned counsel and a} perusal of the material on record, it is clear that^{petitioner'sfather} lost only 0.1 I acres of Iand, while^{4O guntas remained, whichis} sufficient for livelihood. It is noted tllat^{there is no evidence of} complete displacement or loss of livetihood as^{required under} G.O.Ms.No.98 (1986). The petitioner's claim^{of applying in 1989} and continuously pursuing the matter is unsupported^{by official} records. Inclusion in an eligible list or certificate verification^does not guarantee appointment. Furthermore, the 1987^memo relaxing the one-year limit applies only to those displaced before 1986, whereas the petitioner's land acquisition date is inconsistentty stated as 1985 and 1989. Therefore, the petitioner