High Court · 2022

Judgment

-

1. Heard Sri A. Phani Bhushan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Bheema Rao, learned counsel for the respondents in all the batch of petitions.

2. Learned counsels for the parties submit that in all the writ petitions common question is involved based on the same facts and the relief claimed is of the same nature.

3. With the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, all the writ petitions are being decided by the common judgment making W.P.No.40372 of 2018, the leading writ petition.

4. Writ Petition No.40372 of 2018, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for the following relief:- the action of “It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the 1st and 2nd respondents in keeping the proposals pending for inclusion name of the petitioner along with others in the 1st phase list since 2015 even in receipt of reminders, pursuant to the Letter No.CE/NTR.TGP/TPT/C2/9160/SP/DIS/2017, dated 05.07.2017 of the 1st respondent from the 3rd respondent vide Memo No.671042/R&R-A2/2017-1, dt. 21.08.2017 and Memo No.598746/R&R-A2/2017-1, dt. 29.05.2017 R/w Memo No.892539/R&R-A2/2017-1 dt. 04.12.2017 without enforcing illegal and unreasonable and consequently direct the 1st and 2nd respondents to include the names of the petitioner along with others in the 1st phase list and forward the proposals to provide the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.98, dt. 15.04.1986 and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” the same 2

5. The facts of the case as submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners are that in the year 1986 State Government acquired the land of many persons including 1259 persons and after their lands were submerged, they became displaced persons. Out of those 1259 persons 1258 are the petitioners in the present writ petitions.

6. On 15.04.1986, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.98, Irrigation (Proj. Wing) Department, dated 15.04.1986 for providing appointment to the eligible displaced candidates in major and medium irrigation and power projects. Despite thereof, 1258 persons, the petitioners and one T.Sreedhar could not get any placement as their names were included in the second phase seniority list and not in the first phase seniority list. The petitioners are seeking a relief that they should be included in the first phase seniority list pursuant to the Government Memos. dated 29.05.2017, letter dated 05.07.2017, Memo dated

21.08.2017 and Memo dated 04.12.2017.

7. Sri A.Phani Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that initially a list of 320 candidates was prepared in the firstphase, but, later on, because of relaxation of one year eligibility condition fresh applications were invited and out of 14,554 applications received seeking employment G.O.Ms.No.98, scrutinized by the duly constituted District Selection Committee it finalized list of 9751 displaced persons. In that list of 9751 displaced persons, the petitioners herein and one more person T.Sreedhar, were included at different places. Later on, on the petitioners‟ representations, Vide letter dated

05.07.2017 issued by the Chief Engineer, NTR Telugu Ganga 3 Project, addressed to the Secretary, Irrigation Water Resources Department, necessary permission was sought to separate the names of the eligible displaced persons from the second phase

seniority list and to include them in the first phase seniority list at appropriate places in terms of G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 15.04.1986, upon which the Government Memo dated 21.08.2017 was issued, granting permission to the Chief Engineer to separate the names of those 1259 displaced persons from the second phase seniority list and include them in the first phase seniority list at appropriate place. 1258 such displaced persons are the petitioners and one other person is Sri T.Sreedhar.

8. Sri T.Sreedhar, approached this Court in W.P.No.16635 of 2018 for the same relief under the same facts and circumstances. This Court allowed the writ petition by a detailed judgment dated

22.01.2021 holding that “the objections of the State as now presented are not feasible”, and directing the respondents to include T.Sreedhar in the first phase seniority list after separation from the second phase seniority list at the appropriate place subject to the fulfillment of the eligibility conditions including the conditions in G.O.Ms.No.98, Irrigation, dated 15.04.1986. The judgment dated 22.01.2021 was affirmed in W.A.No.698 of 2021 filed by the respondents vide judgment dated 29.12.2021, finding no ground to interfere with the judgment dated 22.01.2021.

9. The State Government implemented the judgment dated

29.12.2021, Memo No.1312431/R&R-A2/2018-15 (C.No.470268), dated 22.02.2022 by placing the name of T.Sreedhar at Sl.No.321 in the first phase seniority list after separating his name from the second phase seniority list. 4

10. In view of the above learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are also entitled for the relief claimed.

11. Sri Bheema Rao, learned Government Pleader fairly submits that the objections to the petitioner‟s claim herein, are the same as in W.P.No.16635 of 2018 and were dealt with by this Court in the judgment dated 22.01.2021 which stands affirmed in writ appeal No.698 of 2021 vide judgment dated 22.01.2021 and in view thereof it is neither open to the respondents nor he is urging the same ground of objections to the claim of the present petitioners.

12. Sri Bheema Rao, learned Government Pleader fairly does not dispute that the case of the petitioners herein would be covered by the judgment dated 29.12.2021 on principles, but he further submits that the petitioners cannot be given the benefit of the judgment dated 22.01.2021 as in W.P.No.16635 of 2018 this Court made it clear that the order was limited to the name of that petitioner (T.Sreedhar) only being included in the first phase seniority list, and the same was also observed in the appellate judgment dated 29.12.2021 in W.A.No.698 of 2021 that “it is made clear that this judgment is limited to the writ petitioner only”. He further submits judgment dated 22.01.2021 W.P.No.16635 of 2018 is not „in Rem‟ but „in Personam‟ and would apply only to the case of T.Sreedhar and not to others i.e. the petitioners herein.

13. Sri A.Phani Bhushan, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though the relief was granted to the petitioner of W.P.No.16635 of 2018 only, but for that reason, it cannot be that the petitioners herein, who are similarly situated and had also 5 approached this Court in the year 2018, are not to be granted the same relief or the relief on the same terms.

14. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the parties and perused the material on record.

15. The point that falls for consideration in view of the submissions advanced is as follows:- “Whether the petitioners are entitled for grant of the same relief as has been granted to T.Sreedhar in W.P.No.16635 of 2018 vide judgment dated 22.01.2021, a displaced person of Somasila Project similarly situated to the petitioners or not?.”

16. It is undisputed that T.Sreedhar was one of 1259 displaced persons of Somasila Project and with respect to all 1259 such persons (including 1258 petitioners) the Government Memo dated

21.08.2017 was issued to place their names in the first phase seniority list at appropriate place after separation from the second phase seniority list.

17. It is also undisputed that this Court in judgment dated

22.01.2021 held that the stand of the State Government that the instructions given were by inadvertence could not be accepted. It was further held that when directions were sought and were in fact given by the Government they must be followed and adhered to. The objections of the State as presented were held not feasible.

18. Relevant part of the judgment dated 22.01.2021 W.P.No.16635 of 2018 reads as under:- “The question, therefore, for consideration is whether this Memo dated 21.08.2017 confers any right on the petitioner to seek a relief from this Court. 6 COURT: If Memo dated 21.08.2017 and the documents referred to in the subject/reference are seen in seriatum the following facts would emerge: (1) On 10.01.2017 the Secretary Government addressed a Memo No.437432, requesting the Chief Engineer to consider the representation submitted by Sri S. Sambasiva Reddy and others. If it is found to be genuine it was directed to be placed before the District Selection Committee to separate the names from the second phase seniority list and to include them in the first phase seniority list. (2) This was followed by a Memo No.450476, dated 20.01.2017, wherein the representation of Sri N.Venkata Subbaiah and others was referred to the Chief Engineer for examination to separate the names from the second phase seniority list and to include them in the first phase list. (3) The third memo referred to is the Memo No.470442, dated 01.02.2017. Another Joint Secretary to the Government addressed a similar letter to the Chief Engineer, basing on the representation of P. Srinivasulu and others. (4) Next is a Memo bearing No.483365, dated 17.02.2017 by the Joint Secretary based on the representation of D.Nandan. (5) The next Memo bearing No.488344, dated 20.02.2017, is based upon the representation by Sri T. Ramanaiah and others. The Joint Secretary directs the Chief Engineer to take necessary action to place the memo before the District Selection committee to separate the names in the second phase seniority list. (6) The next document is the Memo 514694, the Joint dated 13.03.2017 addressed by Secretary with the same subject based upon a representation of Sri Pidugu Suresh Kumar Reddy and others. (7) This was followed by a Memo bearing 7 No.598746, dated 29.05.2017. This is by the Secretary to the Government himself. The Chief Engineer is directed to take immediate necessary action on the request of the individuals to fillup the vacancies and send the proposals pertaining to the available existing vacancies. (8) The next document referred is a Government Memo dated 16.06.2017 addressed by another Joint Secretary to the Government to examine the request from M. Sankaraiah and others. The Chief Engineer is directed to take necessary action to place the matter before the District Selection Committee to separate the names from second phase seniority to include them in the first phase list. All the documents referred to above are the documents in references in the Memo dated 21.08.2017. The last document that is mentioned in this Memo dated 21.08.2017 is the request of the Chief Engineer dated 05.07.2017 himself basing on all these memos etc. In the penultimate paragraphs of letter, dated 05.07.2017, the Chief Engineer writes as follows: “12) In view of the above factual position I request issue necessary permission separate the name of eligible displaced persons from the 2nd phase seniority list and include them in the 1st phase seniority list at appropriate places for providing employment to the displaced persons of G.O.Ms.No.98, dt.

15.04.1986.” After this request was made the following order was passed: “2) In view of the above, the Chief Engineer, NTR Telugu Ganga Project, Tirupati is permitted to take necessary action to separate the names of (1259) displaced persons from the 2nd phase seniority list and to approve their (1259) names and include them in the 1st phase seniority list at appropriate places under Somasila Project if it is genuine as per the orders issued in this regard 8 and as per rules and as per their eligibility and suitability for provision of employment in terms of G.O.Ms.No.98, Irrigation (P.W.) Dept., dt.

15.4.1986 and other G.Os./Memos issued in the matter.” All the documents referred to are found in the volume filed and marked as “Ex.R-1”. A cumulative reading of all the documents and the instructions that have been sought from time to time by officers of the rank of the Secretary/Assistant Secretary from the Government of Andhra Pradesh clearly show that they were seeking permission to separate the case of 1259 candidates. It is also important to note that the list of 9751 approved candidates as per the State was finalized on

18.06.2015 by the District Selection Committee. Despite this senior officers of the State, based upon the representations made by the various sets of people, sought the permission and approved to prepare a fresh separate list of people and to include them in the first phase. The stand of the State Government in this case that the instructions given were by inadvertence cannot be accepted. Almost from January to August, 2017 the matter was being pushed back and forth between the displaced persons, the Secretaries to the Government and the Chief Engineer. Ultimately, proceedings were issued as mentioned above by the Secretary directing the Chief Engineer to separate the names of 1259 displaced persons from the second phase seniority list and to approve them, to include them in the first phase seniority list at the appropriate places. It is also made clear that this approval or placement would only be there if the case of the applicant is found to be genuine as per the orders, rules, eligibility and suitability in terms of G.O.Ms.No.98. It is also important to note that in the written submissions made during the course of the submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out certain errors in the list. According to him the petitioner was placed at 644 in the said list. The petitioner’s lands were acquired in 1979-80 and therefore he contends that he should be placed above the persons indicated at serial No.1 to 10 whose lands were acquired later in 1985-87. He also points out that one Sri C.Ganapathi was included in the list while his daughter has already been 9 provided employment. These are two examples which are being highlighted. In that view of the matter and in view the sustained correspondence by the senior and responsible officials and the orders passed thereon, directing the Chief Engineer to create a separate list and to include them in the original list, this Court has to hold that the petitioner has made out a case for interference. When directions are sought and are in fact given they must be followed and adhered to. A plain language interpretation leads to this conclusion only. The following passage from the case of Commissioner of Police Bombay v Gordhandas Bhanji1 authorized by Justice Vivian Bose in his inimitable style is very apt: “9. .........We are clear that public orders publicly made, in exercise of statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself”. (Emphasis supplied). Even in the celebrated case of Mohindhr Singh Gill and Another v Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Others2 it was held that action is to be judged by the reasons stated in the original order itself. The objections of the State as now presented are not tenable. The stand of the State that there was one list of candidates who were already absorbed is also not borne out by the record.”

19. The Writ Appeal No.698 of 2021 against the judgment dated

22.01.2021 was dismissed on 29.12.2021. The Hon‟ble Division Bench of this Court observed and held that when a direction was