Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 59 (AP)

Sk. Mohd Rafi v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2023-01-05

K.MANMADHA RAO

body2023
ORDER : This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:- “…to declare the G.O.Ms.No.261 Municipal Administration and Urban development (Vig II-2) Department, dated 28.11.2015 issued by the 1st respondent in so far as decision to recover an amount of Rs.28,23,005/- from the terminal benefits of the Applicants husband as illegal, arbitrary, high handed, discriminatory against to the principles of the natural justice and contrary to the procedure established by law apart from being violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution and set aside of the same and consequentially direct the respondents to release pension and pensionary benefits of Sri V. Srinivasa Rao to the applicant forthwith in the interest of justice and pass such other order or orders…….” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner’s father late Sri Massom Saheb is the resident of Dachuru village and this village and neighboring villages were submerged under Kandaleru Reservoir Project. The Government-1st respondent has issued G.O.Ms.No.98 dated 15.04.1986 in which the Government formulated a scheme by providing 50% of vacancies of category equivalent to Junior Assistants/Typists and others below arising in major and medium irrigation and power projects shall be filled up by the displaced families or their dependants of a respective project duly following the reservations of various categories like SC/ST/BC/Ex-serviceman/P.Hs/Sportsmen etc. It is further stated that the petitioner’s father died on 10.02.2010 leaving behind him and 6 of his family members. The 4th respondent had issued proof of award vide Special RGC No.118/2015 dated 05.10.2015 in which it was stated that as per the Award an amount of Rs.63,434/- towards compensation paid towards structures vide Cheque No.1257802 dated 02.03.1994. As per the Award No.12/1993/94 dated 02.03.1994, the petitioner’s father name was shown as the awardee resident of Dachuru Village, lost the structures in TGP No.562, 562-A, 563, 564. The 5th respondent had issued displacement certificate in L.Dis.(A) No.914/2015 dated 06.10.2015 certifying that he has shifted his residence from Dachuru village to Autonagar Works colony, Padarrupali, Nellore since his house was submerged under Kandaleru Reservoir in Dachuru village. Therefore, as per the evidence given by 4th and 5th respondents, the petitioner is the displaced person since his house was submerged under Kandaleru Reservoir Project at Dachuru village and entitled for appointment in the suitable post under 50% quota earmarked to the displaced persons. Therefore, as per the evidence given by 4th and 5th respondents, the petitioner is the displaced person since his house was submerged under Kandaleru Reservoir Project at Dachuru village and entitled for appointment in the suitable post under 50% quota earmarked to the displaced persons. Hence, not enrolling the petitioner’s name in the seniority list which enclosed along with Government Memo dated 26.12.2014 is nothing but illegal and arbitrary. Therefore, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. Counter affidavit has been filed by the 3rd respondent denying all the allegations made in the petition and contended that the petitioner belongs to Dachuru village and the said village is covered in the approved 1st list of 168 candidates only and the Dachur village is not covered in the 2nd approved seniority list of 106 candidates. Since the petitioner has submitted his representation on 13.10.2015 i.e., after approval of the two seniority lists by the government, the name of the petitioner cannot be included in the 2nd seniority list. It is further stated that the Selection Committee constituted for provision of employment comprising (1) District Collector, Nellore (chairman) (2) Joint Collector, Nellore (3) Superintending Engineer, SSLC&SB Circle, Nellore, during the meeting held on 10.02.2016 has taken the following decisions : (i) Pending applications received from the displaced persons after one year from the date of displacement of the village and whose date of displacement of the villages/date of impounding of water not yet arrived cannot be considered and ought to be rejected; (ii) In respect of the village whose date of displacement/date of impounding of water are yet to be notified, the R&R Administrator has to certify the date of displacement or date of impounding of water whichever is earlier, then only the applications can be considered; (iii) No fresh applications from the displaced persons can be entertained hereafter Therefore, the application of the petitioner for providing employment is not received within one year from the date of displacement of village and received after a lapse of 10 years, the petitioner is not eligible for providing employment under displaced persons quota as per G.O.ms.No.98, dated 15.04.1986. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition. 4. Heard Sri K. Koutilya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-III appearing for the respondents. 5. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition. 4. Heard Sri K. Koutilya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-III appearing for the respondents. 5. During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after the death of the petitioner’s father in the year 2010 the petitioner is only the earning member in his family which consists of 7 persons including him. Therefore, it is just and necessary to provide employment to him under displaced pesons quota as earmarked under G.O.Ms.No.98 dated 15.04.1986 which the petitioner is eligible and entitle to be appointed as Junior Assistant or any other suitable post. He further submits that based on the second seniority list approved by the 1st respondent, the 2nd and 3rd respondents taking steps to fill up the vacancies meant for Jas/Typists/other vacancies under displaced persons quota. If the said appointments are to be made without considering the claim of the petitioner under displaced persons quota, the petitioner will be put to irreparable loss and hardship. He further submit that though the second seniority list under the displaced persons quota was prepared and issued vide Proc. in Memo No.641/RR-A2/2012-2, dated 26.12.2014, but the same has not been published. 6. Per contra, learned Government Pleader submits that as per the provisions contained in G.O.Ms.No.98 dated 15.4.1986, the eligible candidate shall apply for employment within one year from the date of displacement. The date of displacement of Dachur village is 31.10.2005. the petitioner has submitted his representation dated 13.10.2015 after a lapse of 10 years for providing employment under displaced persons scheme. As the petitioner has not submitted his representation within the prescribed period of one year from the date of displacement, the petitioner is not eligible for providing employment under displaced persons quota under Kandaleru Reservoir. He further submits that the eligible candidate shall have to make application within one year from the date of actual displacement. 7. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court observed that, admittedly as per G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 15.04.1986 the Government has formulated a scheme by providing 50% of the vacancies of category equivalent to Jas/Typists and others below arising in major and medium irrigation and power projects shall be filled up by the displaced families or their dependents of a respective project duly following reservations of various categories. In the present case, the petitioner is also the displaced person who has been not getting employment under the above said scheme since his house was also submerged under Kandaleru Reservoir Project at Dachuru village of Kaluvoya Mandal. Moreover, the 1st respondent has also issued G.O.Ms.No.68 Irrigation & CAD Department, dated 17.05.2014 and as per the said G.O., the 50% criteria as advised in G.O.Ms.No.98 dated 15.04.1986 would be adhere to while filling up of the posts in each category. It is also made clear that the seniority would be as per the list already approved by the Government and absorbed as per their seniority from the approved list. Therefore, the petitioner is eligible and entitled to get appointment under displaced quota as fixed by the Government. Hence, this Court deems fit to dispose of the writ petition while declaring the action of the respondents No.1 to 3 in not including the name of the petitioner in the seniority list of 106 candidates who seek employment under the displaced persons quota of KRP vide Memo No.641/R and R-A2/2012-2 dated 26.12.2014 of the 1st respondent as per eligibility in terms of G.O.Ms.No.98 dated 15.04.1986 as illegal and the same is liable to be set aside. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of setting aside the Memo No.641/R and R-A2/2012-2 dated 26.12.2014 of the 1st respondent. Further, the respondents No.1 to 3 are hereby directed to consider the case of the petitioner to include his name in the seniority list under displaced persons quota of KRP, for appointment, in any suitable post, as per his eligibility and as per roster, in accordance with rules. Further, it is directed that the Government shall take action as per the seniority so fixed as per G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 15.04.1986. 9. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.