Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 414 (AP)

Muddam Subbaraju v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2025-03-06

CHALLA GUNARANJAN

body2025
ORDER : The petitioners in the present writ petition challenge the order passed by the 3 rd respondent vide No:SE/NTR.TGP Circle/KdP/EC5/641 M, dated 08.08.2019, rejecting their request for providing employment in terms of G.O.Ms.No.98, Irrigation (PROJ.WING) Department, dated 15.04.1986 and G.O.Ms.No.45, Irrigation & C.A.D. (PW:R&R-A2) Department, dated 04.07.2012, as arbitrary and illegal. 2. (a) Petitioners are displaced persons affected by Sri Pothuluri Veera Brahmendra Reservoir. Petitioners’ lands were acquired for the aforesaid project and were paid compensation in terms of Award No.4/1987, dated 09.03.1987, Award No.28/1987, dated 31.07.1987 and Award No.12/1988, dated 25.09.1988. The acquisition of lands was done while they were in the hands of the petitioners' fathers. (b) The Government in order to provide rehabilitation as a welfare measure to the displaced persons whose lands and houses are also acquired for the major and medium irrigation projects, issued G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 15.04.1986, formulating a scheme providing that persons who are displaced be accommodated with jobs in the projects so undertaken. Initially, fathers of the petitioners claimed to have submitted applications in terms of the aforesaid G.O. to include their names in the list of candidates eligible for appointments. Special Deputy Collector, Telugu Ganga Project, was delegated to identify the eligible unemployed displaced persons whose lands were acquired under the project at the instance of the Special Collector’s proceedings dated 08.01.1985, accordingly, the Special Deputy Collector has got list prepared identifying the eligible unemployed persons belonging to Obularajupalli and Gangapatnam Villages, a list enclosed along with letter dated 22.01.1986 included names of petitioners fathers. Though the list was prepared long back, petitioners' fathers were not considered for providing jobs. Meanwhile, due to paucity of time as the original applicants have aged and still were awaiting to be accommodated by Government and the Government has received various representations to provide employment to sons/daughters of such original applicants, G.O.Ms.No.45, dated 04.07.2012, was issued clarifying that the applications received within the time limit as per G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 15.04.1986, but the applicants not being provided employment due to administrative reasons shall be considered for employment as per seniority subject to fulfilling of other eligibility criteria prescribed for the category of job. (c) The petitioners thereafter submitted applications for substitution of their names in the place of their fathers as they have already aged. (c) The petitioners thereafter submitted applications for substitution of their names in the place of their fathers as they have already aged. As the applications were not being considered, petitioners filed O.A. No.7206/2015 and O.A. No.6946/2015 before the Administrative Tribunal, which came to be disposed of by orders dated 22.09.2017 and 17.03.2018 respectively directing the respondents to consider the cases of said applicants and to pass appropriate orders. In pursuance to the said orders, the 3 rd respondent by impugned order dated 08.08.2019 rejected the claim of petitioners holding that they are not eligible for consideration in terms of G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 15.04.1986. Assailing the same, the present writ petition is filed. 3. Respondents 1 to 3 filed counter admitting that petitioners' lands and houses were acquired for the project and they were paid compensation under the awards mentioned above. Insofar as the claim of petitioners fathers that they made applications for employment, it is stated that the competent authority for receiving such applications being District Selection Committee headed by District Collector, Kadapa, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.266, Irrigation and CAD (PW) Department, dated 19.09.1994, the list prepared by Special Deputy Collector (LA) as furnished by petitioners has no sanctity and cannot be taken into consideration. The list prepared by District Collector does not contain the names of fathers of petitioners being original awardees, which clearly implies that they never made any application in terms of G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 15.04.1986. It is further stated that in terms of G.O.Ms.No.98, any application for employment should be preferred within one year from the date of displacement and that the date of displacement as declared for this project was the date of impounding of water, which was on 19.09.2005, the petitioners applications which were made on 11.07.2014 and 07.11.2014 at much later point of time cannot be considered to be valid applications, even if they were to be applications for substitution of names. 4. Heard Sri G. Tuhin Kumar, learned counsel for petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents. 5. Learned counsel for petitioners contends that petitioners’ fathers, who are originally project-affected persons, have parted their lands and houses, for which compensation was paid under awards passed in the years 1987 & 1988. 4. Heard Sri G. Tuhin Kumar, learned counsel for petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents. 5. Learned counsel for petitioners contends that petitioners’ fathers, who are originally project-affected persons, have parted their lands and houses, for which compensation was paid under awards passed in the years 1987 & 1988. Special Collector by proceedings dated 08.01.1995 instructed the Special Deputy Tahsildar, Telugu Ganga Project, to identify eligible unemployed displaced persons under the project, who in turn has upon receiving applications from eligible persons prepared a list which was communicated in turn by letter dated 27.01.1986. The said list contains the names of fathers of petitioners. The benefit under G.O.Ms.No.98, being extended to the project-affectedpersons as they are completely displaced, the case of petitionersshould be considered for the purpose of providing employment. The contention of respondents that by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.266, dated 19.09.1994, District Collector was competent to receive the applications and inasmuch as petitioners fathers have not submitted such applications to the District Collector, the list prepared by Special Deputy Collector has no sanctity is completely erroneous for the reason that the lands and houses of the petitioners were acquired much prior to issuance of G.O.Ms.No.266, i.e., way back in the year 1987 & 1988 when the awards came to be passed. Since respondents have not disputed the factum of preparation of list by Special Deputy Collector, they cannot deny the benefits of G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 15.04.1986, on the above pretext. He would place reliance on the judgment rendered by Division Bench of erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in P. Ramachandra Reddy v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh , [W.P. No.2436 of 2011, dated 08.02.2011.] . He also placed reliance on the judgment rendered by Coordinate Bench of this Court in M. Veeranarayana vs. The Chief Engineer, N.T.R. TGP Circle, Kadapa, [W.P. No.1607 of 2021, dated 07.03.2024] , wherein this Court considering that the list prepared by Special Deputy Collector being not in dispute and only dispute being that the same was not being prepared by competent authority i.e., District Collector, as one of the persons who was enlisted in such list was considered and issued appointment order, the respondents were directed to consider the representation of petitioner therein. 6. 6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader, opposing the aforesaid submission, submits that the list prepared by Special Deputy Collector cannot be taken into consideration as he was not competent to prepare the same and in terms of G.O.Ms.No.266, dated 19.09.1994, only District Collector is competent to prepare such list, therefore, as petitioners fathers admittedly did not make such application to the District Collector, their cases cannot be considered in terms of G.O.Ms.No.98. He further contends that petitioners made applications to 3 rd respondent on 11.07.2014 and 07.11.2015 for the purpose of substitution of their names in place of their fathers in terms of G.O.Ms.No.45, dated 04.07.2012, in the seniority list prepared by Special Deputy Collector at Sl.Nos.186 and 115, these applicants merely claim for substitution, they cannot be considered to be applications required to be submitted in terms of G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 15.04.1986 and even otherwise, if they were to be construed as proper applications, clause (4) (iii) of the G.O.Ms.No.98 contemplates to make application within a period of one year from the date of actual displacement of the family, as the displacement in the present case took place in the year 2005, the time limit to receive the application expired in the year 2006 itself. 7. Perused the record and considered the rival submissions made by both parties. 8. It is not in dispute that petitioners' fathers were affected by formation of Sri Pothuluri Veera Brahmendra Project, for which their lands and houses were acquired under Award No.4/1987, dated 09.03.1987, Award No.28/1987, dated 31.07.1987 and Award No.12/1988, dated 25.09.1988. It is also not in dispute that on the instructions of Special Collector, the Special Deputy Collector, Telugu Ganga Project, has prepared list of eligible unemployed displaced persons whose lands were affected, in which the names of petitioners' fathers find place. Clause (4)(iii) of G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 15.04.1986, contemplates that the persons who are affected and claiming eligibility for jobs should make applications to the district collector within a period of one year from the date of actual displacement of the family and that the preference shall be given with reference to date of displacement for which purpose the collector shall draw a list of such applications and forward the same to the authorities for employment. Admittedly in the present case, petitioners' fathers were affected and awards were passed granting compensation in the year 1987 and 1988. Admittedly in the present case, petitioners' fathers were affected and awards were passed granting compensation in the year 1987 and 1988. The special deputy collector, on the instructions of Special Collector has also prepared the list of unemployed eligible displaced persons and forwarded the same to concerned officers. The respondents also do not dispute the preparation of this list by Special Deputy Collector. The contention that in terms of G.O.Ms.No.266, dated 19.09.1994, only District Collector is competent to prepare such list has no force inasmuch as in the present case, the acquisition was done and award came to be passed much prior to the issuance of aforesaid G.O. The applications or claims made prior to 1994, the exercise was done by District Collector through his machinery and whereas after issuance of G.O.Ms.No.266, the function of selecting and preparing the list of eligible displaced persons is bestowed on District Selection Committee headed by District Collector as Chairman. Even otherwise, the list that was prepared by Special Deputy Collector on which petitioners harp on was admittedly were prepared upon the Special Collector delegating such functions on Special Deputy Collector. One of the persons mentioned in the list of Special Deputy Collector namely P.Rama Subba Reddy at S.No.122 has been substituted by his son P.Rama Chandra Reddy and was appointed as Technical Assistant in the office of Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Circle, Kadapa, which itself demonstrates that the respondents have not disputed the genuinity of list prepared by Special Deputy Collector, rather their objection was only to the extent of the same not being approved by District Selection Committee headed by District Collector. As the functions of identifying and approving the final eligible list by District Selection Committee came to be introduced only by way of G.O.Ms.No.266 in the year 1994, any list prepared prior to that cannot be found fault with and the persons who are enlisted therein Cannot be denied or deprived their claim under G.O.Ms.No.98. The respondents cannot by pick and choose extend the benefit of aforesaid G.O. from the list of Special Deputy Collector as the same clearly amounts to sheer discrimination and violating Article 14 of Constitution of India. 9. The respondents cannot by pick and choose extend the benefit of aforesaid G.O. from the list of Special Deputy Collector as the same clearly amounts to sheer discrimination and violating Article 14 of Constitution of India. 9. In M. Veeranarayana v. Chief Engineer, N.T.R. TGP Circle, Kadapa , [W.P. (AT) No.1607 of 2021, dated 07.03.2024] , this court while considering similar issue and also noticing that one of the persons in the seniority list prepared by Special Deputy Collector was issued appointment orders as mentioned above, directed the respondents to consider the case of petitioner therein in pursuance to the representation made. The impugned order proceeded on the premise that petitioners are making application for first time on 11.07.2014 and 07.11.2015 and by referring to the various memos issued by the government on 22.12.2005, 17.09.2010, 29.10.2010 and 28.10.2016, it is stated that belated applications will not be considered for employment and the timeline fixed in terms of G.O.Ms.No.98 i.e., one year period from the date of displacement cannot be extended and the cut-off date being 19.09.2005, any applications made after 18.09.2006 were to be treated as belated. Further that the petitioners have not submitted their applications to District Selection Committee on or before 18.09.2006 by producing the documents as mentioned therein, their cases cannot be considered. When the petitioners’ fathers admittedly had already made a claim seeking employment and their names were enlisted in the list prepared by Special Deputy Collector way back on 27.01.1986, merely because the District Selection Committee came to be constituted by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.266, dated 19.09.1994 at a later date, the applications made prior to would not become invalid. Mere fact that one of the persons enlisted in such a list has been extended the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.98, by applying principle of parity, petitioners have to be extended the same benefit. Therefore, the impugned order dated 08.08.2019 passed by 3 rd respondent suffers from illegality and is here by set aside. The respondents are directed to reconsider the case of petitioners considering that petitioners’ fathers were already shown in the list prepared by Special Deputy Collector for the purpose of providing employment in terms of G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 15.04.1986 and G.O. Ms.No.45, dated 04.07.2012. 10. In the result, this writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if any, in this case shall stand closed.