ORDER : E. Dharma Rao, J. This writ petition is filed to direct the respondents to consider the representation dated 2-12-1999 submitted before the respondents and appoint them in any suitable job and to pay compensation for their acquired lands admeasuring Acs : 11 and 7 respectively for the purpose of power project situate at Palvancha (v) and Revenue Mandal of Khammam district and consequently to declare the action of the respondents as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. 2. The facts of the case is narrow compass are that the petitioners filed the writ petition aggrieved by the action of the respondents in refusing the service of the first petitioner as helper in the respondents' organisation without considering the representation dated 2-12-1999. The first petitioner's grand father, late Gaddam Venkaiah lost Acs: 11 V2 of land in survey No.727 situate at Palvancha Mandal of Khammam district for under acquisition for the purpose of Kothagudem Thermal Power Station and Hospital etc. The first petitioner had passed SSC in April 1986, diploma in Electronics and Communications from the State Board of Technical Education, A.P. Hyderabad in second class during April 1995. He secured 52.85% of marks in the said diploma course. He belongs to Scheduled Caste. It is submitted that one Regulagadda Veeraiah had impersonated as the grandson of G. Venkaiah and got employment as Helper and after due enquiry he was removed from service. Thereafter, the first petitioner made several representations to consider his application for appointment. In the year 1993, the first petitioner was appointed as contract labourer and thereafter in the year 1996 without assigning any reason, the respondents corporation refused to continue him as contract labourer. 3. The second petitioner submits that he is aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not considering his application even though his father late Talupunuri Kotaiah has lost Acs: 7 of wetland in survey No.727 situate at Palvancha Mandal of Khammam district for the aforesaid purpose. The second petitioner had passed SSC in October 1985 and belongs to B.C. (B) Group. In the year 1993, the first petitioner was appointed as contract labourer and thereafter in the year 1996 without assigning any reason, the respondents corporation refused to continue him as contract labourer. 4. The second petitioner had passed SSC in October 1985 and belongs to B.C. (B) Group. In the year 1993, the first petitioner was appointed as contract labourer and thereafter in the year 1996 without assigning any reason, the respondents corporation refused to continue him as contract labourer. 4. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, it is stated that the contention of the petitioners that the respondents have not considered the representation dated 2-12-1999 is not correct, as the same was not received in the office. The representations dated 16-9-1999 and 1/2000 were received in the office. In the representation dated 16-9-1999 the first petitioner represented to consider his application for providing job and another application dated 1/2000 he has stated that he approached this court and filed W.P.No.26766 of 1999 and sought for direction to consider his case. Now the present writ petition is different from W.P.No.26766 of 1999. This court had dismissed W.P.No.26766 of 1999 on the ground that it was filed after a lapse of more than 35 years and held that such claims cannot be adjudicated. The case of the petitioner was not considered as the application submitted is time barred and two dependents of the family are already the employees working in KTPS/Palvancha, namely, Mr. Gaddam Dharmaiah and Mr. Gaddam Samuel. 5. The respondents submit that according to the records the first petitioner's grand father Gaddam Venkaiah has lost Acs: 5-34 of land but not Acs: 11 as contended by the first petitioner. The contention of the petitioners that they have not received compensation for the acquisition of land is not tenable, as the land was acquired during the year 1963 and the petitioner is not a displaced person, as he was born on 24-8-1970 and his presence was not existed at the time of acquisition of the said land. The acquisition of land and payment of compensation was dealt by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kothagudem. The petitioners are not the absolute owners of the acquired land. The first petitioner is the grand son of Gaddam Venkaiah, who had three sons, among them two sons are employees of KTPS. He is not eligible for appointment as two of his uncles are the employees of KTPS. 6. The respondents further submit that as per the records the second petitioner is the son of late T. Kotaiah, Helper. The first petitioner is the grand son of Gaddam Venkaiah, who had three sons, among them two sons are employees of KTPS. He is not eligible for appointment as two of his uncles are the employees of KTPS. 6. The respondents further submit that as per the records the second petitioner is the son of late T. Kotaiah, Helper. The father of the second petitioner was the land looser. While the father of the second petitioner was working as Helper in KTPS 'B' expired on 6-8-1989. As on the date of acquiring Acs: 7 of land, the father of the second petitioner was the employee of KTPS/Palvancha. In Memo. No. CE/KTPS/AD.3/D.No.1672/90, dated 5-7-1990 the second petitioner was sanctioned his share of gratuity of his father. The land of the father of the second petitioner was acquired by the Government of A.P. and handed over to the erstwhile APSEB for utilisation during seventies. According to the instructions issued in Memo. No.MPS/DM1/1935/C3/78, dated 16-6-1978 only one member of the applicant of the family is eligible. In terms of the said memo and also G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 15-4-1986, the petitioners are not eligible for appointment under land looser quota. 7. Heard the learned counsel papering for the petitioners, Mr. G.V. Shivaji and the counsel, Ms. Arifa, papering on behalf of the learned counsel for the respondent, Smt. K. Sesharajyam. 8. In this writ petition, the grievance of both the petitioners are one and the same. But as seen from the facts and circumstances enumerated in the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners did not explain as to how far the petitioners are aggrieved by the action of the respondents when the case of the petitioners is totally different from the factual aspects, the rule of reservation totally different from the factual aspects, the rule of reservation and does not fall within the purview of G.O.Ms.No.98 Irrigation (Project Wing) Department, dated 15-4-1986. 9. The respondents have clearly stated in the counter affidavit that firstly, the petitioner No.1 was not born at the time of acquisition of land and moreover his paternal uncles, who are the sons of late Gaddam Venkaiah are the employees, working in KTPS Palvancha. 10. 9. The respondents have clearly stated in the counter affidavit that firstly, the petitioner No.1 was not born at the time of acquisition of land and moreover his paternal uncles, who are the sons of late Gaddam Venkaiah are the employees, working in KTPS Palvancha. 10. Secondly, the Petitioner No.2 though being the son of the land looser, by name Talupunuri Kotaiah, is not eligible for employment, as on the date of acquisition of land admeasuring Acs: 7, the father of the second petitioner late Talupunuri Kotaiah was working as Helper. Further the father of the second petitioner while working as Helper in KTPS 'B' had expired on 6-8-1989. As on the date of acquiring Acs: 7 of land, the father of the second petitioner was the employee of KTPS/Palvancha, Khammam district. In Memo.No. CE/KTPS/AD.3/D.No.1672/90, dated 5-7-1990 the second petitioner was sanctioned his share of gratuity of his father, late Talupunuri Kotaiah. The land of the father of the second petitioner was acquired by the Government of Andhra Pradesh and handed over to the erstwhile APSEB for utilisation during seventies. The acquisition of land and payment of compensation was dealt by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kothagudem. The petitioners are not the absolute owners of the acquired land. 11. While things stood thus, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners placed much reliance on the proposals submitted by the General Superintendent of Kothagudem Thermal Power Station, Paloncha, Khammam District in his letter dated 26-6-1979 wherein he requested the Secretary, A.P.S.E.B., Vidyutsoudha, Hyderabad to create supernumerary post for appointment of the grand children who are the dependents of the displaced persons i.e. the land losers. The General Superintendent in the said letter also made personal requests that the sons and daughters of land losers are already overaged and so they are not in a position to serve the Board even if they are provided with job at K.T.P.S. and as such he requested to provide employment to the grand sons/grand-daughters of the land owners as their children are grown up to hold the posts. In view of the same he requested the Board to provide employment to the ground children of the persons whose lands were acquitted for construction of K.T.P.S. instead of their sons/daughters if the cases of the sons/daughters are not considered. In view of the same he requested the Board to provide employment to the ground children of the persons whose lands were acquitted for construction of K.T.P.S. instead of their sons/daughters if the cases of the sons/daughters are not considered. I consider that this proposal is contradictory to the scope and ambit of the Government policy enunciated under G.O.Ms.No.676 Irrigation and Power dated 17-11-1978 modified by the orders in G.O.Ms.No.98 Irrigation and Power Department dated 15-4-1986. The learned counsel also relied upon the proceedings issued by the Electricity Board in Memo dated 27-12-1985 wherein under similar circumstances, the case of one Mr.M. Nagendra Babu, the grand son of Sri Panuganti Pitchaiah, Ex.M.L.A. whose lands were acquired for construction of K.T.P.S. Paloncha for appointment as L.D.C. in the Operation Circle, Khammam was considered as a special case and therefore the Chief Engineer K.T.P.S. was requested to send bio-data of the above applicant with reference to the land acquired from Pitchaiah, Ex.M.L.A. Khammam to consider his case for appointment, it is not evident whether the case of the grand son of Pitchaiah, Ex.M.L.A was considered by the Board or not and even if it is considered it is against the scheme enunciated by the Government under G.O.Ms.No.676 dated 17-11-1978. I do not know under what circumstances, the General Superintendent of K.T.P.S. has addressed letter dated 26-6-1979 to the Board requesting for consideration of the cases of the grand sons/grand daughters of the land oustees for appointment to serve in the organisation contrary to the policy of the Government beyond the period of limitation of one year prescribed under the above referred Government orders. Therefore, I hold that the above said proposal of the General Superintendent dated 26-6-1979 and the Memo dated 27-12-1985 issued by the Electricity Board are contrary to the scheme and policy of the Government enunciated under G.O.Ms.No.676 Irrigation and Power dated 17-11-1978. 12. The learned counsel papering for the petitioners also placed reliance on G.O.Ms.No.98 Irrigation (Project Wing) Department, dated 15-4-1986 but the provisions of rehabilitation provided by the Government is different from the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Actually the applications for appointment from the eligible candidates has to be made to the District Collector concerned within a period of one year from the date of actual displacement of the family. Actually the applications for appointment from the eligible candidates has to be made to the District Collector concerned within a period of one year from the date of actual displacement of the family. Preference shall be given with reference to the date of displacement and to those applicants whose houses and lands are acquired against those whose land or house only is acquired. The District Collectors shall draw up a list of such applications and forward the same to the Project authorities for appointment. But the said G.O. is not applicable to the facts of the case on hand, as the grand father of the first petitioner was the land looser in the year 1963 and by that time the first petitioner was not born. The petitioners have made vague and frivolous attempt to declare the action of the respondents in not considering their appointments as illegal and arbitrary. Therefore, in those circumstances, viewed from any angle, the petitioners are not entitle to seek the relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as the bona fides of the petitioners are misconceived and the preponderance of the probabilities are absurdly false. 13. On careful examining the case of the petitioners and as well as the provisions enunciated in the said G.O., it is seen that the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.98, Irrigation (Project Wing) Department, dated 15-4-1986, wherein the Government of Andhra Pradesh has provided rehabilitation provision of employment to the displaced persons or their dependents, such as Junior Assistants, Typists and the cadres below, in the Projects should be given to the eligible displaced persons or their dependents i.e., son/daughter/spouse whose names are furnished by the respective Collectors. The Collectors were requested to draw a list of those eligible displaced persons for the above jobs in the Projects and forward to the Project authorities for making appointments to the categories indicated above and send a copy of the list to the Employment Exchange covering the Project Area. It was ordered that the rule of reservation should be adhered to within the district. It was ordered that the rule of reservation should be adhered to within the district. The aforesaid G.O., further contemplates that not more than 50% of the vacancies of the categories equivalent to Junior Assistants/Typists and the Cadres below arising in Major Medium Irrigation and Power Projects shall be filled up by the displaced families/or their dependents of a respective Project duly following the reservations for various categories viz., SC/ST/BC/Ex-servicemen, Physically Handicapped and Meritorious Sportsman etc. The candidates eligible for appointment under this scheme shall be the displaced persons or his/her son, daughter, spouse, there being no other earning member in the family. Applications for appointment from the eligible candidates has to be made to the District Collector concerned within a period of one year from the date of actual displacement of the family. Preference shall be given with reference to the date of displacement and to those applicants whose houses and lands are acquired against those whose land or house only is acquired. The District Collectors shall draw up a list of such applications and forward the same to the Project authorities for appointment. 14. Therefore, the contention raised by the petitioners is beyond the spirit and scope of G.O.Ms.No.98, Irrigation (Project Wing) Department, dated 15-4-1986 and the instructions issued in Memo.NO.MPS/DM1/1935/C3/78, dated 16-6-1978 only one member of the applicant of the family is eligible. The rehabilitation provision of employment to the displaced persons or their dependents, such as Junior Assistants, Typists and the cadres below, in the Projects should be given to the eligible displaced persons or their dependents i.e., son/daughter/spouse whose names are furnished by the respective Collectors. To avoid this kind of litigation in future and before considering the cases of the displaced persons or their dependents i.e., son/daughter/spouse whose names are furnished by the respective Collectors for appointment, such as, Junior Assistants, Typists and the cadres below in the Projects, the respondents are hereby directed to strictly adhere and follow the principles and the guidelines laid down in the scheme and the provisions contemplated under G.O.Ms.No.98, Irrigation (Project Wing) Department, dated 15-4-1986 and also the instructions issued in Memo. No.MPS/DM1/1935/C3/78, dated 16-6-1978 that only one member of the applicant of the family is eligible for appointment. 15. With the above observation, the writ petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.