ORDER : The petitioners agricultural and residential lands were acquired by the Government for the purpose of Sri Ram Sagar Project (SRSP) in 1971. It is their case thatthey are entitled to employment under the Displaced Persons Quota vide G.O.Ms.No.98 dated 15.04.1986, however, their applications have been rejected by the respondent authorities on the ground of delay. 1.1 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: 1.1.1 In W.P.No.15208 of 2018, the agricultural land to an extent of Ac.9-16 guntas in Survey No.113, and also and house bearing No.4-74/B, Rathnapur Village of Armoor Mandal, Nizamabad District. 1.1.2 In W.P.No.15218 of 2018, the agricultural land and house bearing Nos.3-96 and 3-98 situated at Boppara Village. 1.1.3 In W.P.No.15267 of 2018, the agricultural land to an extent of Ac.2-23 guntas, Ac.1-27 guntas, Ac.2-04 guntas, and Ac.2- 30 guntas in Survey Nos.122, 164, 167, and 213, and also the houses bearing No.5-1, 5-2, 5-3, 5-7, to an extent of 123.38 sq.mtrs and 226.20 sq.mtrs situated at Rajpura village. 1.1.4 In W.P.No.15283 of 2018, the agricultural land to an extent of 108.38 sq.mtrs and house bearing No.5-37. 1.1.5 In W.P.No.15357 of 2018, the agricultural land to an extent of Ac.2-06 guntas and Ac.2-08 guntas in Survey Nos.1360 and 1345, and house bearing No.1-82/4. 1.1.6 In W.P.No.15426 of 2018, the agricultural land to an extent of Ac.0-19 guntas in Sy.No.125, and Ac.0-01 guntas in Sy.No.148, and Ac.0-08 guntas in Sy.No.354. 1.1.7 In W.P.No.15457 of 2018, the agricultural land and house bearing No.9-50/1, 9-50/2 situated at Nuthypalli village of Nandipet mandal, Nizamabad District. 2. The subject matter, and also the grievance, being similar, the writ petitions are taken up for disposal by this Common Order. For the sake of discussion, the averments in W.P.No.15208 of 2018 are taken as reference. 3. The case of the petitioner, as per the writ affidavit in W.P.No.15208 of 2018, is that he (and his family) belongs to the BC-Bcommunity, and theylost livelihood when the agricultural land and residential property— house bearing No. 4-74/B and land measuring Ac.9-16 gts in Survey No.113 at Rathnapur Village, Armoor Mandal, Nizamabad District—were acquired by the Government in 1971 for the construction of the Sri Ram Sagar Project (SRSP). The family received only meager compensation from the Special Deputy Collector, and no alternative employment was provided. Relying on G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 15.04.1986, issued by the Irrigation (PW) Department, the petitioner contends that the Government had committed to offering 50% of vacancies in certain junior-level posts to displaced persons or their dependents, provided that there is no earning member in the family. 3.1 The petitioner submitted an application to the 2 nd respondent on 07.09.2016 referencing the family’s loss of land and property (including house numbers 9-50/1 and 9-50/2)and asserting that no member of his family has a government job. However, his application was rejected vide Memo dated 5.12.2017, citing the time limit under G.O.Ms.No.98; and Memodated 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 15.05.2006. He subsequently submitted another application on 8.9.2017, which was rejected by referring to Memo dated 14.05.2010. 3.2 Petitioner contends that in O.A.No.7917 of 2003, the Tribunal set aside an earlier rejection dated 28.03.2000, affirming that candidates displaced prior to the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.98 were not bound by the time limit of one-year, and accordingly directed the authorities to consider such candidates, including the petitioner, without referring tothe date of application. The Government challenged similar decisions arising from O.A.No.10637 of 2009 by filing W.P.No.2436 of 2011.This Court, by judgment dated 30.06.2017dismissed the writ petition, by upholding the Tribunal’s findings that the Government’s policy allowed such relaxation and there was no injustice in directing consideration of the applicant’s claim. 3.3 The matter escalated further when the State approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing S.L.P. (Civil) No.14308 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 attention a letter dated 30.07.2014 issued by Respondent No.2, which explicitly recognized the final judicial position that no limitation period would apply for awardees displaced prior to G.O.Ms.No.98 dated 15.04.1986; and in spite of this judicial position, his application was again rejected through Memo dated 05.12.2017, while similarly situated persons have recently been appointed under the same policy. 3.4 The petitioner contends that the respondents countered his claims by alleging that the petitioner was ineligible under the displaced persons quota due to expiry of time limit mentioned in earlier government orders. However, the petitioner contends that such a position has been repeatedly overruled by competent judicial bodies, including the Tribunal, this Court, and the Supreme Court, thereby rendering the respondents’ stance baseless and contrary to established law. 3.5 Petitioner further contends that the rejection of his application on the grounds of an expired deadline is not only contrary to judicial precedents but also to the government’s own findings and actions in similar cases. The petitioner asserts that unless directed by this Court, the respondents will continue to unjustly deny him the opportunity for employment, despite his legal entitlement as a displaced person under G.O.Ms.No.98. Petitioner therefore prays for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus declaring Memodated 05.12.2017 as illegal and unconstitutional and for a direction to include his name in the seniority list for appointment under the displaced persons quota. He submits that he has no alternative remedy and has not approached any other forum for the same relief. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; and learned Government Pleader for Services-I. Perused the record. 5 . Learned counsel for 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 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 5.1 It is contended that the petitioner and his family was displaced in 1971 due to the acquisition of their agricultural and residential property, and the Government under G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 15.04.1986, pledged to allocate 50% of certain junior-level posts to displaced persons or their dependents, especially when there were no other earning members in the family, and the petitioner qualifies under these criteria, as no member of his family holds a government job. 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 related 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. 5.3 It is contended that that time limitations do not apply to persons displaced before the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.98. 5.3 It is contended that that time limitations do not apply to persons displaced before the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.98. He references several key legal decisions, and in support of this contention, namely, the O.A.No.2297/1996, wherein the Tribunal had already directed the respondents in 1996 to consider his case; that in O.A.No.7917/2003, the Tribunal held that the one-year limitation could not be applied to those displaced before 1986; that this view was reaffirmed in O.A.No.10637/2009 (upheld by this Court in W.P.No.2436/2011 through a decision dated 30.06.2017); that the Special Leave Petition (SLP No.14308/2011) filed by the Government challenging this ruling was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 04.07.2011, affirming the relaxation of the time limit. 5.4 Furthermore, the petitioner cites a letter dated 30.07.2014 from Respondent No.2, which recognized that no limitation period applied to displaced persons prior to 1986, thus confirming the interpretation of the law in favour of the petitioner. He also highlights that similarly situated persons have been recently appointed under the same scheme, whereas his case continues to be unfairly rejected. 6. Mrs. B. Annapurna, learned Assistant Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of Irrigation & CAD Department, based on the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent, contends that the petitioner’s request for employment under the displaced persons quota—based on the acquisition of agricultural land and residential property belonging to his family for the Sri Ram Sagar Project (SRSP) in 1971—is both time-barred and procedurally invalid. The crux of the respondent’s position is that the petitioner’s application dated 8.9.2017, filed 46 years after the actual displacement, is grossly belated and falls outside the scope of existing government orders and clarificatory memos governing such employment claims. 6.1 According to the respondent, the petitioner is seeking employment under G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 15.4.1986, a government 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 stated in Para 4(iii) of the said G.O., which also gives preference to applicants whose houses and land were acquired. The order required all applications to be made to the District Collector, who would then forward them to the project authorities. 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. The order required all applications to be made to the District Collector, who would then forward them to the project authorities. 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 Government later issued Memo dated 22.12.2005, cautioning that applications should not be entertained if received long after displacement. This memo stated that although a brief window was allowed for those who missed the original one-year limit, the authorities should not go on receiving such applications after the lapse of decades. 6.3 It is contended by the learned Assistant Government 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 legal and administrative framework. 6.4 Adverting to the judicial precedents cited by the petitioner—such as O.A. No.7917/2003 (order dated 16.7.2007) and O.A. No.10637/2009 (order dated 30.6.2010) of the Tribunal)—wherein the Tribunal had directed authorities to consider applications "irrespective of limitation", the learned Assistant Government Pleader contends that these orders were rendered without the benefit of later clarifications, specifically Memo No.37498, dated 22.12.2005, and Memo No.11606, dated 14.5.2010. And these memos, which were either not presented or were issued after the earlier rulings, significantly altered the interpretation by specifying strict timelines and barring new applications. 6.5 Learned Assistant Government Pleader cites the judgment of the Tribunal in O.A. No.2080/2013, which dealt with a similarly delayed application filed after 28 years of displacement. In the said O.A.No.2080/2013, the Tribunal held that the applicant was not entitled to be considered under G.O.Ms.No.98 due to the cutoff established by the later memos. 6.5 Learned Assistant Government Pleader cites the judgment of the Tribunal in O.A. No.2080/2013, which dealt with a similarly delayed application filed after 28 years of displacement. In the said O.A.No.2080/2013, the Tribunal held that the applicant was not entitled to be considered under G.O.Ms.No.98 due to the cutoff established by the later memos. The judgment in O.A. No.2080/2013 concluded 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 same had to be read in conjunction with the later clarifications issued vide Memo No.37498, dated 22.12.2005, and Memo No.11606, dated 14.5.2010. 6.6 Furthermore, the learned Assistant Government Pleader contends that the petitioner is attempting to misuse earlier 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 undermine the purpose of establishing cutoff periods for displaced persons' employment claims. Additionally, by filing the writ petition after a long lapse and attempting to claim benefits well after the expiration of all deadlines, the petitioner demonstrates a lack of due diligence, if not a malafide intent to exploit administrative gaps. 7. 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 1971 due to land acquisition for the Sri Ram Sagar Project, resulting in the loss of agricultural land measuring Ac.9-16 gts and residential structures. While the Government did issue G.O.Ms.No.98 dated 15.04.1986 to address such displacement, and initially prescribed a one-year limit for submitting 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. 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.7917/2003 and O.A.No.10637/2009, wherein the Tribunal categorically held that the time limitation in G.O.Ms.No.98 could not be applied to persons displaced prior to its issuance. These decisions were upheld by this Court in W.P.No.2436/2011. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in S.L.P. (Civil) No.14308/2011, chose not to interfere, thereby affirming the legal position that no limitation would apply to such displaced persons. These decisions were upheld by this Court in W.P.No.2436/2011. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in S.L.P. (Civil) No.14308/2011, chose not to interfere, thereby affirming the legal position that no limitation would apply to such displaced persons. Further, the Memo No.37498 dated 22.12.2005 and Memo No.11606 dated 14.05.2010 were either not brought to the Court’s attention or were not found to operate retrospectively to nullify earlier decisions. 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 persons quota in recent years. Such selective enforcement undermines the principle of equality before the law under Article 14 and thereby such actions are discriminatory and arbitrary. The petitioner’s land was acquired for public purpose; however, he has not been provided with an employment as assured while acquisition.His repeated representations, beginning with O.A.No.2297/1996, show consistent pursuit of his claim, thereby the claim cannot be dismissed summarily on the ground of delay or laches. 7.3 In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner’s case deserves consideration under the displaced persons category contemplated under G.O.Ms.No.98 and the subsequent relaxation issued in 1987, and the rejection of his application vide Memo dated 05.12.2017 is therefore liable to be set aside, in view of the fact and circumstances of the present case. 8. Accordingly, the impugned Memo dated 05.12.2017 is set aside, and the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to reconsider the petitioner’s application afresh, without reference to the one- year limitation, subject to verification of other eligibility criteria under the displaced persons quota, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of this order. The writ petition Nos. 15218, 15267, 15283, 15357, 15426, and 15457 of 2018 also stand disposed of in the same terms. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.