Judgment : Battu Devanand, J. 1. This Writ Appeal is preferred by the State against the order, dated 19.07.2022 in W.P.No.19065 of 2022. 2. Both the parties in the Appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the Writ Petition for convenience. 3. Heard, the learned Government Pleader for Services-III appearing for appellants/respondents and Sri Moka Kondala Rao, learned counsel for the respondents/writ petitioners and carefully perused the material available on record. 4. The case of the writ petitioners is that the lands of the petitioners’ family are required in the year 1984 and 1985 for Sri Pothuluri Veera Brahmendra Reservoir of Telugu Ganga Project, B Mattam Mandal. The petitioners are displaced persons affected in the said reservoir. The competent authorities issued displaced certificates to all the petitioners. The petitioners submitted their applications on 06.12.2006, 12.12.2006, 27.05.2008 and 31.01.2009 respectively requesting to provide employment under the displacement scheme as per G.O.Ms.No.98, Irrigation (Proj.Wing) Department, dated 15.04.1986. The said applications are rejected by the 2 nd respondent by order, dated 16.09.2020 on the ground that the applications are submitted after cutoff date. It is stated in the rejection order, dated 16.09.2020 that the actual date of displacement of all the families under Telugu Ganga Project is 19.09.2005 and displaced persons under Telugu Ganga Project have to submit their applications for employment on or before 18.09.2006. Aggrieved by the rejection order, dated 16.09.2020, as it is contrary to the Government Memo No.480-LAR(2)/87-2, I&CAD (Proj.Wing) Department, dated 24.08.1987 and as per the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.14913 of 2010 & batch, order of rejection is challenged in the writ petition. Aggrieved by the rejection order, dated 16.09.2020, as it is contrary to the Government Memo No.480-LAR(2)/87-2, I&CAD (Proj.Wing) Department, dated 24.08.1987 and as per the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.14913 of 2010 & batch, order of rejection is challenged in the writ petition. The learned single Judge by order, dated 19.07.2022 considering the submissions made on both sides that the issue in that writ petition is squarely covered by order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.13543 of 2019, dated 01.02.2022 and considering the submissions of the learned Government Pleader that the order in Writ Petition No.13543 of 2019 has become final, the learned single Judge is pleased to allow the writ petition by order, dated 19.07.2022 setting aside the impugned proceedings, dated 16.09.2020 and directed the writ petitioners to submit relevant documents referred to in the impugned order within a period of one month and on submissions, the appropriate authority is directed to consider the case of the writ petitioners in terms of G.O.Ms.No.98, Irrigation (Proj.Wing) Department, dated 15.04.1986 and also on par with the order of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.9807 of 2009, dated 21.08.2009 within a period of three (03) months therefrom. 5. Dissatisfied with the said order, the State preferred the present writ appeal. 6. The main ground raised in this writ appeal filed by the State is that the applications submitted by the writ petitioners are time barred and the order in W.P.No.13543 of 2019 on which the learned single Judge relied and allowed Writ Petition No.1906 of 2019 is already under challenge before this Court in Writ Appeal No.356 of 2023. 7. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the State contends that in view of the subsequent instructions issued under various memos subsequent to issuance of Government Memo No.480-LAR(2)/87-2, I&CAD (Proj.Wing) Department, dated 24.08.1987, the writ petitioners are not entitled to seek employment as their applications are time barred. 8. We are unable to accept the contention of the learned Government Pleader on the following grounds: Admittedly, the writ petitioners are the family members of the displaced persons of Telugu Ganga Project. The actual date of displacement of all families under Telugu Ganga Project is 19.09.2005. Admittedly, the writ petitioners submitted their applications on 06.12.2006, 12.12.2006, 27.05.2008 and 31.01.2009 respectively. We are unable to accept the contention of the learned Government Pleader on the following grounds: Admittedly, the writ petitioners are the family members of the displaced persons of Telugu Ganga Project. The actual date of displacement of all families under Telugu Ganga Project is 19.09.2005. Admittedly, the writ petitioners submitted their applications on 06.12.2006, 12.12.2006, 27.05.2008 and 31.01.2009 respectively. The said applications are rejected by order, dated 16.09.2020 on the ground that the applications are not submitted within one year as stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.98, Irrigation (Proj.Wing) Department, dated 15.04.1986. It is very strange to note that the applications of the writ petitioners have been kept pending for more than a decade with the State Authorities and rejected them on the ground that they are not submitted within the time stipulated. It is clear that while rejecting the applications of the writ petitioners, the State Authorities did not take into consideration the Government Memo No.480-LAR(2)/87-2, I&CAD (Proj.Wing) Department, dated 24.08.1987 wherein one year time prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.98, Irrigation (Proj.Wing) Department, dated 15.04.1986 has been relaxed and various orders passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal and the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. In fact, this Court has considered the identical issue in a case of similarly situated persons in Writ Appeal No.356 of 2023 holding that the action of the State Authorities in rejecting the applications of the displaced persons on the ground of time barred is unsustainable and contrary to the settled law on this aspect. Considering the facts and circumstances and the material available on record, in our considered view, the issue raised in the present writ appeal is squarely covered by the judgment passed by this Court 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. 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.” 9. For the aforesaid reasons and findings, in our considered opinion, the action of the State Authorities in rejecting the claim of the writ petitioners is unsustainable, untenable and contrary to the settled law. Therefore, we do not find any merits in this writ appeal and it is deserved to be dismissed. 10. Accordingly, this writ appeal is dismissed. 11. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.