Judgment : Battu Devanand, J. The Writ Appeal Nos.1289 of 2023 and 315 of 2024 have been filed against the order, dated 05.01.2023 in W.P. (AT) No.47 of 2021 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. The Writ Appeal No.1289 of 2023 filed by the State whereas Writ Appeal No.315 of 2024 filed by the persons, who are aggrieved by the said order, seeking relief of the Court. 2. Since the issue involved in both the writ appeals is one and the same and the order under challenge in both the appeals is also one and the same, the two writ appeals are disposed of by a common judgment. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing on both sides and carefully perused the material available on record. 4. Submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner: (i) The father of the writ petitioner late Sri Massom Saheb in W.A.No.1289 of 2023 is resident of Dachuru village Kaluvoya Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. The village of Dachuru and neighbouring villages were submerged under Kandaleru Reservoir Project. The petitioner belongs to BC- E community and passed S.S.C. in the year 1994 and also Senior Secondary School Examination in the month of December, 2010. The father of the petitioner died on 10.02.2010 leaving behind him and 6 of his family members. The Special Deputy Collector i.e., 4 th respondent issued a proof of award vide special RGC No.118/2015, dated 05.10.2015. The Tahsildar of Kaluvoya Mandal i.e., 5 th respondent herein issued displacement certificate in L.Dis.(A) 914/2015, dated 06.10.2015 certifying that the father of the petitioner shifted their residence from Dachuru village, Kaluvoya Mandal to Autonagar Works Colony, Padarrupalli, Nellore Mandal since their house was submerged under Kandaleru Reservoir in Dachuru village. The 5 th respondent also issued no earning member certificate, dated Nil.08.2015. It is the contention of the petitioner that as per the said documents, the petitioner is displaced person since his house was submerged under Kandaleru Reservoir and as such he is entitled to claim employment in terms of G.O.Ms.No.98, Irrigation (Proj.Wing), dated 15.04.1986 and as per the orders and instructions issued by the State Government from time to time. (ii) The grievance of the petitioner is that the District Collector, SPSR, Nellore District i.e., 3 rd respondent herein sent the second seniority list of displaced persons under Kandaleru Reservoir on 30.12.2011 and 30.01.2014 for necessary approval of the Government. (ii) The grievance of the petitioner is that the District Collector, SPSR, Nellore District i.e., 3 rd respondent herein sent the second seniority list of displaced persons under Kandaleru Reservoir on 30.12.2011 and 30.01.2014 for necessary approval of the Government. After examining the same, the second seniority list of 106 displaced persons under Kandaleru Reservoir sent by the 3 rd respondent was approved by the 1 st respondent. In the second seniority list containing 106 candidates, petitioner name is not shown, though he is eligible as per the scheme. Against the action of the respondents in not including his name in the second seniority list approved in Government Memo, dated 26.12.2014, he approached the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A.No.649 of 2016. Subsequently, the said O.A. was transferred to the Andhra Pradesh High Court and it was renumbered as W.P. (AT) No.47 of 2021. The said writ petition was disposed of by the learned single Judge of this Court by order, dated 05.01.2023 setting aside the Memo No.641/R&R- A2/2012-2, dated 26.12.2014 issued by the 1 st respondent wherein 106 displaced persons names included in the second seniority list. The learned single Judge also directed the official respondents to consider the case of the petitioner to include his name in the seniority list under displaced persons quota of Kandaleru Reservoir Project for appointment in any suitable post as per his eligibility and as per roster in accordance with rules. It is further directed that the Government shall take action as per the seniority so fixed as per G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 15.04.1986. Aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge, dated 05.01.2023, the State preferred an appeal in W.A.No.1289 of 2023. The learned counsel would submit that the order of the learned single Judge is in accordance with law and reasonable and as such, interference into the same is not warranted and sought to dismiss the writ appeal. 5. Submissions of the learned Government Pleader: (i) The main ground raised in this appeal is that as per clause (iii) of G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 15.04.1986, applications for appointment from the eligible candidates shall be made to the District Collector concerned within a period of one year from the date of actual displacement of the family. In the present case, the writ petitioner is son of awardee, belongs to Dachuru Village and the date of displacement of Dhachuru village is 31.10.2005. In the present case, the writ petitioner is son of awardee, belongs to Dachuru Village and the date of displacement of Dhachuru village is 31.10.2005. Thus, the petitioner has to submit his application within one year from the date of displacement. But, he submitted application for employment under displacement persons quota on 13.10.2015 and as such he is not entitled for the same. (ii) It is further contention of the learned Government Pleader is that the District Selection Committee has called for applications from the displaced persons of submerged villages of Kandaleru Reservoir, Telugu Ganga Project in the year 2007. After receipt of hundreds of applications from the aspirants, two seniority lists have been prepared basing on the eligibility criteria. The eligibility criteria for preparation of seniority list is (i) the date of impounding of water in the villages and (ii) actual displacement of villagers from the villages whichever earlier. Accordingly, the first seniority list consisting of 168 candidates pertaining to the villages where water was impounded and actual displacement taken place and the second seniority list consisting of 106 candidates pertaining to the villages where water was not impounded and actual displacement was not taken place were prepared. The first seniority list was got approved vide Government Memo, dated 22.10.2010. The second seniority list was proved vide Government Memo, dated 26.12.2014. It is the contention of the learned Government Pleader that neither father of the petitioner nor the petitioner made any application in the year 2007 despite award was passed for their structure through award No.12/1993/94, dated 02.03.1994. The District Administration had provided employment to the eligible candidates in the first seniority list and second seniority list as per the vacancies arisen duly following the procedure provided under relevant Government Orders. Accordingly, out of 168 candidates in the first seniority list, 135 candidates were given employment whereas out of 106 candidates in the second seniority list, 23 candidates were provided employment under displacement persons’ quota. (iii) The another ground raised by the learned Government Pleader is that the petitioner belongs to Dachuru village and the eligible displaced persons of Dachuru village were included in the first seniority list which was approved by the Government vide Memo, dated 22.10.2010 taken into account the actual displacement of Dachuru village. (iii) The another ground raised by the learned Government Pleader is that the petitioner belongs to Dachuru village and the eligible displaced persons of Dachuru village were included in the first seniority list which was approved by the Government vide Memo, dated 22.10.2010 taken into account the actual displacement of Dachuru village. The second seniority list approved by the Government vide Memo, dated 26.12.2014 is pertaining to the candidates of the other villages which were not included in the first seniority list basing on the date of impounding of water in those villages. Accordingly, learned Government Pleader would contend that as the petitioner is not entitled to include his name in the second seniority list because he belongs to Dachuru village and it was included in the first seniority list, he is not entitled to seek to include his name in the second seniority list and without considering this factual position, the learned single Judge erroneously set aside the second seniority list. Finally, learned Government Pleader would submit that the order of the learned single Judge is unsustainable under law and sought to set aside the same by allowing the writ appeal. 6. Submissions of the learned counsel for appellants in W.A.No.315 of 2024: (i) Sri Vivekananda Virupaksha, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants in W.A.No.315 of 2024, would submit that the appellants are beneficiaries of the second seniority list. The 1 st appellant is resident of Thumaya Village, Rapor Mandal, SPSR Nellore District and he lost lands under Kandaleru Reservoir, SPSR Nellore District, in lieu of the same, the Special Deputy Collector, Telugu Ganga Project, Rapor passed award in his favour and paid compensation. The 2 nd appellant is resident of Gundavolu Village, Rapor Mandal, Nellore District and his lands were acquired by the Government in Kandaleru Reservoir Project and award was passed and compensation was paid. As they were entitled for employment as displaced persons in terms of G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 15.04.1986, they made applications to the concerned authorities. A District Selection Committee prepared a seniority list on 22.10.2010 containing the names of 168 candidates and subsequently second seniority list was published as per Government Memo, dated 26.12.2014 wherein the names of 106 candidates were included. The names of the appellants were included in the second seniority list as Serial Nos.32 and 85. A District Selection Committee prepared a seniority list on 22.10.2010 containing the names of 168 candidates and subsequently second seniority list was published as per Government Memo, dated 26.12.2014 wherein the names of 106 candidates were included. The names of the appellants were included in the second seniority list as Serial Nos.32 and 85. Pursuant to the approval of the second seniority list on 26.12.2014 by the Government, it was not implemented and the appellants are not provided any employment, though they are fully qualified. (ii) On enquiry in the office of the Superintendent Engineer, SSLC and SB Circle, Nellore on 07.03.2024, it is learnt that the second seniority list approved by the Government vide Memo, dated 26.12.2014 had been set aside by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh by order, dated 05.12.2023 in W.P.(AT) No.47 of 2021. Then, it is learnt that the said writ petition was filed against the official respondents for not including the name of the writ petitioner in the second seniority list and considering his contention, the learned single Judge had set aside the second seniority list. The learned counsel would contend that the appellants are the beneficiaries under the second seniority list which the writ petitioner had challenged. Though there are 106 candidates in the second seniority list including the appellants, they were not arrayed as party-respondents in the said writ petition. (iii) The learned counsel would further contend that the learned single Judge set aside the second seniority list wherein 106 candidates’ names are included without giving any opportunity to the effected parties to put forth their grievance which is in violation of principles of natural justice. The learned counsel contends that the writ petitioner belongs to Dachuru village and the eligible candidates from that village under displacement quota for considering employment are included in the first seniority list approved by the Government vide Memo, dated 22.10.2010. In the second seniority list approved by the Government vide Memo, dated 26.12.2014, the names of 106 candidates pertaining to the remaining villages where water was not impounded and actual displacement was not taken place were included. In the first seniority list, the candidates pertaining to Dachuru village where water was impounded and actual displacement was taken place were included. In the second seniority list approved by the Government vide Memo, dated 26.12.2014, the names of 106 candidates pertaining to the remaining villages where water was not impounded and actual displacement was not taken place were included. In the first seniority list, the candidates pertaining to Dachuru village where water was impounded and actual displacement was taken place were included. Accordingly, the learned counsel contends that if the petitioner having any grievance for not including his name in the eligible candidates list, he ought to have sought to include his name in the first seniority list, not in the second seniority list which is not pertaining to Dachuru village. (iv) Accordingly, the learned counsel submits that by virtue of the displacement, the appellants had lost their livelihood and by virtue of the order of the learned single Judge impugned in this appeal, they have lost opportunity to get employment. He contends that the learned single Judge without considering all these factual aspects and without providing any opportunity to the effected parties has passed order, dated 05.01.2023 in W.P.(AT) No.47 of 2021 erroneously and as such, it is liable to be set aside by allowing their writ appeal. 7. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, in our considered view, the following issues emerged for consideration: (1) Whether the writ petitioner in W.A.No.1289 of 2023 is entitled to seek appointment under displacement persons quota as per G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 15.04.1986 r/w Memo No.480-LAR(2)/87-2, I & CAD (Proj.Wing) Department, dated 24.08.1987? (2) Whether the writ petitioner in W.A.No.1289 of 2023 is entitled to include his name in the second seniority list approved by the Government in Government Memo No.641/R&R-A2/2012-2, dated 26.12.2014? (3) Whether the interest of the appellants in W.A.No.315 of 2024 have been seriously affected by the order, dated 05.01.2023 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.(AT) No.47 of 2021 and the said order is in violation of principles natural justice? 8. Reasoning and Finding: (I) Issue No.1 (a) Admittedly, the writ petitioner is son of awardee, belongs to Dacheru village and the date of displacement of Dachuru village is 31.10.2005. The father of the writ petitioner died on 10.02.2010. The 4 th respondent issued a proof of award vide Special RGC No.118/2015, dated 05.10.2015. The 5 th respondent issued displacement certificate in L.Dis.(A) 914/2015, dated 06.10.2015. The 5 th respondent also issued no earning member certificate, dated Nil.08.2015. The father of the writ petitioner died on 10.02.2010. The 4 th respondent issued a proof of award vide Special RGC No.118/2015, dated 05.10.2015. The 5 th respondent issued displacement certificate in L.Dis.(A) 914/2015, dated 06.10.2015. The 5 th respondent also issued no earning member certificate, dated Nil.08.2015. The writ petitioner submitted application for employment under displaced persons quota on 13.10.2015. The main ground raised in the appeal filed by the State is that as per clause (iii) of G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 15.04.1986 applications for appointment from the eligible candidates shall be made to the District Collector concerned within a period of one year from the date of actual displacement of the family. (b) On careful examination of the facts of the case, it establishes that the family of the writ petitioner was displaced since their house in Dachuru village is submerged under Kandaleru Reservoir. There is no dispute that the writ petitioner belongs to the displaced persons family and he is eligible as per the certificates issued by the respondent Nos.4 and 5, but the reason for denying employment to the writ petitioner is his application is time barred. In fact, the issue of one year time prescribed under clause (iii) of G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 15.04.1986 has been considered by this Court several times. (c) Recently, in a case of the State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, water Resources Department vs. Rajola Jagannadha Reddy and others in Appeal No.356 of 2023, dated 17.11.2025, this Court considered this aspect elaborately and held that the action of the State Authorities in rejecting the claim of the writ petitioners therein on the ground of time barred is untenable and unsustainable and liable to be dismissed. (d) The relevant portion of the said judgment is extracted herein under: 11. Discussion and Analysis: (i) In fact, the State Government way back in the year 1978 took a policy decision to provide jobs to the displaced persons/their dependants of the project on a regular basis considering the hardship being faced by the displaced persons, whose lands were acquired for various public purposes including major and medium organization and power projects and accordingly issued G.O.Ms.No.676, Irrigation & Power Department, dated 17.11.1978. In the said G.O. it is provided that preference in recruitment to the posts equivalent to Lower Divisional Clerk (now Junior Assistant), Typists and the cadres below, in the projects should be given to the eligible displaced persons or their dependants i.e., son/daughter/spouse of their names are furnished by the respective Collectors. The Collectors were requested to draw the list of those eligible displaced persons for the said jobs in the projects and forward to the Project Authorities for making appointments to them. (ii) In supersession of the orders in G.O.Ms.No.676, Irrigation & Power Department, dated 17.11.1978, the Government has issued certain orders vide G.O.Ms.No.98, Irrigation (Proj.Wing) Department, dated 15.04.1986 to provide jobs to the displaced persons of the project or their dependants as extracted herein under: i) Not more than 50% of the vacancies of the categories equivalent to Junior Assts./Typists and the cadres below arising in Major & Medium Irrigation & Power Projects shall be filled up by the displaced families or their dependants of a respective project duly following the reservations for various categories viz. SC, ST, BC, Ex-Serviceman, Physically Handicapped and Meritorious Sportsman, etc., ii) The candidates eligible for appointment under this schedule shall be the displaced persons or his/her son/daughter or spouse there being no other earning member in the family; iii) Applications for appointment from the eligible candidates shall 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 Collector shall draw up a list of such application and forward the same to the Project Authorities for appointment; iv) All appointments made in this scheme shall be temporary to state with. However, the services of these employees will be regularized in the categories of posts whose pay is equal less than that of Jr. Assts. v) The temporary appointment of the persons employed under this scheme can be considered for regular appointment without subjecting them to normal process or recruitment rules provided they satisfy other conditions of recruitment prescribed in the rules, such as age, and educational qualifications, etc. Assts. v) The temporary appointment of the persons employed under this scheme can be considered for regular appointment without subjecting them to normal process or recruitment rules provided they satisfy other conditions of recruitment prescribed in the rules, such as age, and educational qualifications, etc. However, a formal notification may be made to the employment exchange and after filling up the vacancy, the appointing authority will furnish all relevant particulars of the candidates, the employment exchange covering the area; vi) The regular appointment made under this scheme should be kept outside the purview of the A.P. Public Service Commission. Necessary amendments to the A.P. Public Service Commission regulations shall be issued separately. (iii) The condition No.iii extracted herein above stipulated that the applications for appointment from the eligible candidates shall be made to the District Collector concerned within a period of one year from the date of actual displacement of the family. Considering the fact that many displaced persons were deprived of the opportunity of employment due to the said condition, the State Government after careful consideration of the matter, have decided to relax the said condition and directed that the condition of applying for appointment within one year from the date of displacement does not apply to such of the persons/families, who are displaced prior to the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.98, Irrigation (Proj.Wing) Department, dated 15.04.1986 and accordingly issued a Memo No.480-LAR(2)/87-2, I&CAD (Proj.Wing) Department, dated 24.08.1987 to that effect. (iv) It appears that as and when several displaced persons and their dependant family members under various projects were denied the benefit of providing jobs under the land displacement category as provided in G.O.Ms. No.98, Irrigation (Proj.Wing) Department, dated 15.04.1986, they had approached the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal on several occasions and it is evident that the Administrative Tribunal had passed several orders directing the State Authorities to consider the case of the displaced persons without reference to one year time stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.98, Irrigation (Proj.Wing) Department, dated 15.04.1986 and to provide jobs to them as per the policy. (v) The O.A.No.7917 of 2003 was disposed of by order, dated 16.07.2007 and O.A.No.9807 of 2009 disposed on 01.08.2009 and O.A.No.10637 of 2009 disposed on 30.07.2010 by the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal directing the State Authorities to consider the case of the applicants therein for appointment in terms of G.O.Ms.No.98, Irrigation (Proj.Wing) Department, dated 15.04.1986 irrespective of date of their applications or irrespective of the limitation prescribed therein as per their eligibility and suitability. The order, dated 30.07.2010 in O.A.No.10639 of 2009 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad was challenged by the State in the Composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in W.P.No.2436 of 2011. The said writ petition was dismissed by a Division Bench by order, dated 08.02.2011. The relevant portion of the said order is extracted herein under: “Admittedly, the land of the 1 st respondent was acquired by the government for certain purpose and he, along with his family, was displaced from the village. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 15.04.1986, extending the benefit of providing jobs to the displaced persons. Subsequent thereto, a memo was issued by the Government on 24.08.1987 relaxing the condition of applying for appointment within one year from the date of actual time, to the persons who were displaced prior to issuance of the said G.O. The Government itself has framed a policy of providing jobs to the displaced persons and also relaxed the condition of applying for appointment within one year, to the persons displaced prior to the issuance of G.O. The Tribunal has rightly exercised its discretion in directing the petitioners herein to consider the application of the 1 st respondent for appointment. We do not find any injustice or any reason, warranting interference by this Court in the order passed by the Tribunal.” (vi) Dissatisfied with the said order, the State carried the matter to the Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.14305 of 2011. The said Special Leave Petition was dismissed by the Apex Court by order, dated 04.07.2011. As such, it is clear that the order, dated 13.06.2010 in O.A.No.10637 of 2009 of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad has become final. 12. The said Special Leave Petition was dismissed by the Apex Court by order, dated 04.07.2011. As such, it is clear that the order, dated 13.06.2010 in O.A.No.10637 of 2009 of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad has become final. 12. Reasons & Findings: (i) In the present case, the writ petitioners are similarly situated persons to the applicants in O.A.No.10637 of 2009 and as the applicants therein were provided job as per the order of the Tribunal wherein it is directed that irrespective of date of application or irrespective of limitation prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.98, Irrigation (Proj.Wing) Department, dated 15.04.1986, had been implemented after dismissal of the Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.14305 of 2011 by the Apex Court on 04.07.2011. As such, now the State cannot take stand that the claim of the writ petitioners herein is time barred. (ii) It is an admitted fact that prior to issuance of G.O.Ms.No.98, Irrigation (Proj.Wing) Department, dated 15.04.1986, the lands of the petitioners were acquired by the State. As such, the time prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.98, Irrigation (Proj.Wing) Department, dated 15.04.1986 to submit the applications for appointment from the eligible candidates is need not to be taken into consideration in the light of the orders of this Court and Apex Court as discussed supra. Thus, the action of the State Authorities in rejecting the claim of the writ petitioners on the ground of time barred is untenable and unsustainable and liable to be dismissed. (iii) The contention of the respondents that the writ petitioners are not entitled to claim employment as per G.O.Ms.No.98, Irrigation (Proj.Wing), dated 15.04.1986 and Memo, dated 24.08.1987 in the light of the subsequent Memos, dated 22.12.2005, 14.05.2010, 29.10.2010 and 28.10.2016 issued by the Government has no substance. The Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.98, Irrigation(Proj.Wing) Department, dated 15.04.1986 envisages compassionate appointment to displaced persons on account of loss of their livelihood and intends to compensate their source of living. Accordingly, the Government Memos, dated 22.12.2005, 14.05.2010, 29.10.2010 and 28.10.2016 relied on by the Government Pleader cannot override the effect of G.O.Ms.No.98, Irrigation (Proj.Wing), dated 15.04.1986 and Memo No.480-LAR(2)/87-2, I&CAD (Proj.Wing) Department, dated 24.08.1987. What is stated in the Memos relied by the learned Government Pleader have no relevance to the petitioners’ case. Accordingly, the Government Memos, dated 22.12.2005, 14.05.2010, 29.10.2010 and 28.10.2016 relied on by the Government Pleader cannot override the effect of G.O.Ms.No.98, Irrigation (Proj.Wing), dated 15.04.1986 and Memo No.480-LAR(2)/87-2, I&CAD (Proj.Wing) Department, dated 24.08.1987. What is stated in the Memos relied by the learned Government Pleader have no relevance to the petitioners’ case. In view of the admitted fact that the names of the petitioners were included in the “Master Eligibility List” prepared in the year 2009 and many candidates, who were in the same list were appointed under displaced persons category as per the Administrative Tribunal Orders, which were attained finality as per the order of the Apex Court, stated supra, the contention of the Respondents on this aspect is unsustainable and accordingly rejected.” Accordingly, the Issue No.1 is answered in favour of the writ petitioner. (II) Issue No.2: Admittedly, the writ petitioner is the son of awardee, belongs to Dachuru Village. The date of displacement of Dachuru Village is 31.10.2005. It is an admitted fact that after calling for the applications from the displaced persons of submerged villages of Kandaleru Reservoir under Telugu Ganga Project, in the year 2007. After receipt of applications from the aspirants, basing on the eligibility criteria, two seniority lists were prepared. The first seniority list containing 168 candidates pertaining to the villages where water was impounded and actual displacement was taken place. Admittedly, the displacement of Dachuru village is 31.10.2005. If the petitioner intends to seek employment under the displacement persons quota for displacement of his land/structure situated in Dachuru Village, he can insist to include his name in the first seniority list. The second seniority list containing 106 candidates pertaining to the villages where water was not taken place. The second seniority list was approved by the Government by Memo, dated 26.12.2014. As the displaced persons of the villages where water was impounded and actual displacement was taken place, the first seniority list containing 168 candidates was approved by the Government on 20.10.2010. In the first seniority list, displaced persons of Dachuru village were included. The second seniority list was prepared for the candidates pertaining to the villages where water was not impounded and actual displacement was not taken place. It was approved by the Government vide Memo, dated 26.12.2014. In the first seniority list, displaced persons of Dachuru village were included. The second seniority list was prepared for the candidates pertaining to the villages where water was not impounded and actual displacement was not taken place. It was approved by the Government vide Memo, dated 26.12.2014. Considering these factual positions, in our considered view, the petitioner is not entitled to seek to include his name in the second seniority list approved by the Government vide Memo, dated 26.12.2014 in view of the fact that he belongs to Dachuru village. Accordingly, issue No.2 is answered against the writ petitioner. (III) Issue No.3: Admittedly, the writ petitioner challenged the second seniority list approved by Government vide Memo, dated 26.12.2014 containing the names of 106 candidates under displaced persons quota for providing employment. The learned single Judge by order, dated 05.01.2023 in W.P.(AT) No.47 of 2021 has set aside the Government Memo, dated 26.12.2014 wherein second seniority list containing 106 candidates was approved by the Government. Admittedly, all these 106 candidates are really affected parties. The learned single Judge without directing the writ petitioner to implead the affected parties as party-respondents in the writ petition and also without affording any opportunity to the affected parties, set aside the Government Memo, dated 26.12.2014. In our considered opinion, setting aside the second seniority list containing 106 candidates approved by the Government vide Memo, dated 26.12.2014 without affording any opportunity to the affected parties is clear violation of principles of natural justice. As such, the appellants in W.A.No.315 of 2024 are permitted to institute the appeal against the order of the learned single Judge and the order of the learned single Judge is unsustainable under law as it is in clear violation of principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the issue No.3 is answered inf avour of the appellants in W.A.No.315 of 2024. 9. For the aforesaid discussion and reasons, in our considered view, the order of the learned single Judge is unsustainable under law and facts and it is liable to be set aside. 10. Accordingly, the issue No.3 is answered inf avour of the appellants in W.A.No.315 of 2024. 9. For the aforesaid discussion and reasons, in our considered view, the order of the learned single Judge is unsustainable under law and facts and it is liable to be set aside. 10. Accordingly, the W.A.No.315 of 2024 is allowed with the following directions: (i) The order, dated 05.01.2023 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.(AT) No.47 of 2021 is hereby set aside by restoring the Government Memo No.641/R&R-A2/2012-2, dated 26.12.2014; (ii) The respondent Nos.2 to 5 in W.A.No.315 of 2024 shall provide employment to the appellants under displaced persons quota in terms of G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 15.04.1986 as per their turn; 11. The writ appeal in W.A.No.1289 of 2023 is disposed of with the following directions: The appellant shall include the name of the respondent/writ petitioner in the first seniority list by following due process and shall provide employment to him under displaced persons quota in terms of G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 15.04.1986 as per his turn. 12. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.