The High Court · 2025

circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declare the impugned Lr. No.SE/PJP/ABlEC.2l3841 d1.25.03.2011 and Lr.No.SE/PJPtABlEC2l334 dt.18.05.2017 issued by the lst respondent mechanically rejected petitioner claim for appointment under displaced category and quash the same as illegal, and ignorance of the ruling in O.A.No.7917 of 2003 confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.No.2436 of 2011 and Apex Court in SLP No.14305 of 2011 and consequently direct the respondents. to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment to any suitable post under displaced persons category as number of similarly placed persons above him and below him were appointed with all consequential benefits. lA NO: 'l OF 2019 Petiticn under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit liled in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the respondonts to consider the claim of the writ petitioner or one of the his family members for appointment to any suitable post under displaced persons quota being Awardee of 1985 by suspending the impugned Lr.No.SE/pJp/ABlEC.2l3A41 dt. 25.03.2011 and Lr. No.SElPJPlABlEC2l334 dt.18.05.2017 issued by the 1"t respondent pending disposal of the above W.P. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI G. BALARAIGAIAH Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR SERVTCES - I The Court ntade the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAI{A U'RIT PETITION No.4132 of 2Ol9 , ORDER: The petitioner challenges the rejection of his claim for employment under the displaced persons category through letters dated 25.O3.2O11 and 18.05.2017. His father's land (0.11 acres) in Chintharevula village was acquired in 1985 for the PJP Project, causing loss of livelihood. Based on G.O.Ms.No.98 (1986) and official assurances, he applied for employment in 1989 and was included in the eligible list, with certificate verification done in 1992-93. Despite this, his claim was rejected in 2011, wrongly stating the application was filed only in 2OO4 and was time- barred. The petitioner argues this is incorrect and cites judgments confirming the one-year limit does not apply to those displaced before 1986. A reconsideration request in 2017 was also rejected on the same erroneolrs grounds. Therefore, he seeks a direction to the respondents to consider his claim for appointment, as many similarly placed candidates have been appointed.

2. Heard Sri G.Balarangaiah, learned c<lunsel for petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-[ for respondents. Perused the record. 2 NEKJ W.P. No.4132 of 2019

3. Learned counsel for the respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that G.O.Ms.No.98 (1986) reserves jobs for displaced persons, requiring applications within one year of displacement. This deadline was relaxed by a 1987 memo for those displaced before 1986. Only persons who lost substantial cultivable land affecting their livelihood qualify, not those who lost only houses. [t is stated that. petitioner's land was left with 4O guntas, which is very much available to him to carry on his livelihood, and the Government paid compensation to the petitioner's father as per the law prevrilling at that time. It is also relevant to submit that ignorance of the law is not excusable, and in the instant case, the petitioner and his father knew very well about the rejection of their candidature. The petitioner's father's small landholding \ ras acquired in t985 with compensation, but the petitioner's 2004 job application was rejected as late. Courts have upheld that disptacement means significant loss impacting livelihood. The petitioner's delay and failure to meet the conditions justified the rejection, and the government's policy is final. Therefore, the petition lacl:s merit and should be dismissed.

4. Learnr:d counsel for petitioner filed a reply affidavit stating that G.O.Ms.No.9B (1986) provides employment reservations for FIffiS_qflii-5t 't ,t' I I 3 NBIU W.P. 1,10.4132 of 2019 displaced persons, with a one-year application period. A 1987 memo relaxed this time limit only for those displaced after 1986. The petitioner's 0.11-acre land was acquired in 1989 for the Jurala Project, and he applied for employment from 1989 onward, submitting all required certificates. Despite multipte requests and interviews between 1992 and 2OL7, he was not appointed. Belonging to the B.C. category and without other income, the petitioner seeks justice under the G.O.Ms.No.98 scheme, but the issue remains unresolved despite official communications.

5. Considering the submissions of both learned counsel and a perusal of the material on record, it is clear that petitioner's father lost only 0.1 I acres of Iand, while 4O guntas remained, which is sufficient for livelihood. It is noted tllat there is no evidence of complete displacement or loss of livetihood as required under G.O.Ms.No.98 (1986). The petitioner's claim of applying in 1989 and continuously pursuing the matter is unsupported by official records. Inclusion in an eligible list or certificate verification does not guarantee appointment. Furthermore, the 1987 memo relaxing the one-year limit applies only to those displaced before 1986, whereas the petitioner's land acquisition date is inconsistentty stated as 1985 and 1989. Therefore, the petitioner t t 4 r{8xJ W.P. No.4132 of 2019 fails to meet :he eligibility criteria under the scheme, the rejection of his claim is lawful, and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to c()sts. Miscellar-..eous applications, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed. i I - L. VIJAYA LAXMI AS STANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To

1. One CC to SRI G. BALARANGAIAH, AdVOCAtC 2. Two CCs to GP for Services{, High Court for Hyderabad. [OUT] U

3. Two ()D Copies State of Telangana at MP BM trl T HIGH COURT DATED i0110712025 I s O (-) 2 3 JAN 2026 * * ORDER WP.No .4132 of 2019 ISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS u) il{ 6\,\'!