Writ Petition No. 33416 of 2077 · The High Court · 2025

Order

Petitioners frled Writ Petition No. 33416 of 2077 to direct respondents to appoint them as Junior Assistant or in any suitable post under displaced persons quota in terms of

G.O.Ms.No. 98, dated 15.O4.1986 and G.O.Ms.No. 68, dated

17.O4.2014 as was done in respect of simiiarly-situated persons from Lhe date of their eligibility. This Court, by order dated 23-lO.2Ol7 in W.P.M.P.No.41569 of 2Ol7 directed the 2nd respondent to consider the representations of petitioners made in that behalf and take action in accordalce with Law.

2. Pursuant to the said direction, petitioners are stated to have made representation to respondents, however, the latter issued speaking orders dated 0 I . 12.2017 and

05.12.2017 rejecting their case with the following reasons: i) Applications will not be accepted even if received after the cut-off date notified by . the Project authority/ District Collector after following the dates mentioned therein. Applications not falling within those parameters will rejected forthwith. ii) No new Application will be received for employment from displaced persons, as the deadlines set in G.O.Ms.No.98, Irrigation & CAD (PW) department, dated \ 2

15.04.1986 and Memo No.a80lLAR.(2\187-2, Irrigation & CAD (PW) Department, dated 24.08.1987 has expired long back. In this connection, the above displaced persons have submitted their Applications on 24.O8.2017 for providing employment under displaced persons quota in terms of G.O.Ms.No.9S, dated 15.O4.1986 after lapse more thar-r 30 years. According to petitioners, APAT in O.A.No.10637 of 2OOg and batch by order dated 30-06-2010, directed respondents to consider the case of applicant for appointment in terms of G.O.Ms.No.98 dated 15.O4.1996 irrespective of the limitation prescribed therein and pass appropriate orders as per his eligibility and suitability. The above said orders are confirmed by this Court in Writ Petitioh No.2436 of 2O11 dated Oa.O2.2Ol1 and before the Honble Apex Court in SLP (Civil) No.14305 of 2Oi1. Hence, the 1aw is settled that displaced persons are permitted to submit their Applications irrespective of the limitation prescribed, provided if their displacement took place prior to issue of G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 15.04' 1986' Petitioners state that they are land-losers prior to issuance of G.O.Ms.No.98, therefore, eligible for employment under displaced persons quota. According to petitioners' respondents are -deliberately flouting the orders on one pretext i J or the other. Hence, the action of respondents is wilful violation of the order of this Court dated 23.7O.2OI7. The 2"d respondent Coliector filed counter stating that land and house properlies of petitioners' fathers were acquired for the purpose of construction of Sriramsagar Project and compensation amount was also paid. While so, petitioners hled thc subject Writ Petition seeking a direction to Respondents to consider their cases in any suitable post under displaced persons quota. Pursuant to the order dated

23.10.2017, the 1"t respondent had issued speaking order dated O 1. 12.2Ol7 in respect of the petitioners stating that, they are not eiigible to consider for appointment under displaced persons quota, as the Government had already issued instructions uide Memo dated 14.05.2010 that no new Application q,ould be received for empioyment from displaced persons, as the deadline set in G.O.Ms.No.9S, dated 15.O4. 1986 and Memo dated 24.08. 1987 expired long back. However, in view of the letter dated 1O.01.2O20 addressed by the Government Pleader, in the light of the observations made by this Court, the Superintending Engineer, GVC 1 , SRSP. Pochampad requested in his letter dated

13.O1.2O2O to convene Selection Committee Meeting to examine Applications of petitioners. Accordingly, Selection Committee 4 ':, ir'. meeting was conducted on 16.O 1 .2O2O and examined the Applications of petitioners in terms of G'O.Ms'No'98, dated

15.4.1986, Government Memo dated 24.08.1987 Memo dated

22.12.2OO5 and Government Memo, dated 14'05'201O' According to this respondent, as per G'O'Ms No 98, dated i 5.4. 1986, for securing employrnent under displaced persons quota, Applications from eligible candidates shall be made to the District Collector concerned within a period of one year from the date of actual dispiacement of the family' Preference shall be given with reference to the date of displacement and to those applicants whose houses and land are acquired.. The District Collectors shal1 draw up a list of such Applications and forward the same to the project authorities for appointment. Further, Government in Memo dated 24 'O8'19a7 clarified that 'period of one year' does not apply to such of the persons/ families who are displaced prior to issuance of the said G.O. It is stated that Government constituted Selection Committee uide G.O.Ms.No.266 d'ated Lg.Og.lgg4 read lr'ith G.O.Ms.No. 135, dated 17 .Lt.2OO9 to select the candidates among the Applications received for appointment subject to other preferences/ conditions prescribed in G'O'Ms'No'98, with the following officers. i) District Collec-tor concerned as Chairman ) ii) iii) Joint Collector of the District concerned as Member Superintending trngineer of the concerned project as Member-Convenor Further it is also stated that Government issued instructions uide Merno dated 22.12.2005 which reads as follows ' In case of eligible displaced persons whose lands and structures acquired under lrrigation Projects prior to the issue of G.O.Ms.No.98 dated 15.4.1986 instructions rvere issued to the District Collectors to forward the applications of the displaced persons to the concerned authorities [or appointment even though they have applied for appointlnent after one year of their displaccment vide Memo. No.48O- LAR(2) /87 2 dated 24.A.19a7. Because, by that time, \a,hen the G.O.Ms.No.98 came into force, the displaced persons might have crossed the time bound period of one year to appty for appointment, and not to go on receiving such applications by the District Administrators/ Project Administrator after etapsed period of decades,, Since the District Collectors are receiving Applications without following cut-off date and sending the same for approval even after lapse of 20 years, the Government issued clarihcation in Memo dated i4.05.2010 to G.O.Ms.No.98 and Memo dated 24.08.1987- Further Government directed that all the Engineers-in Chief/ Chief Engineers of Irrigation Projects and the District Collectors to follow scrupulously the instructions for employment of the displaced persons under G.O.Ms.No.98 dated 15.O4. 1986. 6 This respondent stated that petitioners submitted Applications on 24.08.2017 in terrns of G.O.Ms.No.98 after lapse of 32 and 25 years respectively from the date of displacement of their father's properties. As per the details, the 1st petitioner was not born and the 2'd petitioner was minor and at the age of 6 years 9 months at the time of passing Award and displacement. Therefore, they were found not eligible and their Applications were rejected in the Selection Committee Meeting held on 16.0l.2O2O and passed orders vide proceedings dated 17 .O1.2O:2O as per the orders of the Government in force' It is stated that in sirnilar circumstances, APAT passed orders in O.A.No. 2O8O of 2OJ3 rejecting the case of applicant therein on that ground that he made Application after a gap of about 28 years and he is not eligible for consideration as per G.O.Ms.No.98 dated 15.O4. 1986 read with the clarilications giveo uide Memo dated 22-|2.2OOS and another Memo dated 14.05.2010. The Tribunal observed that it is settled law that the Courts/ Tribunal cannot interfere in the Policy decision taken by the Government. It is brought to the notice of this Court that tn Dhamltur Sugar (If.ashipur) Ltd. u. State OJ UttaranchaU, the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered ' (2oozl 8 scc 418 tr/ ,/ 1 the case larv on the policy decision and scope of Judicial review and held as follows: " [n our judgment, it is well.settled that public authorities must have liberty and freedom in framing policies- No doubt, the discretion is not absolute, unqualified or unfettered or rlncanalised and judiciary has control over all cxecutive actions. At the same time, however, it is u,ell established that courts are ill-equipped to deal with these matters, decisions have to be taken by governmeltal authorities keeping in vieu'several factors, and it is not possible for courts to consider competing claims and conflicting interests and to conclude which may the balance tilts. Thcre are no objectives, justifiable or manageablt: standards to judge the issues nor can such questions be decided on priority considerations' In the present cases also, petitioners submitted their Appiications on 24.O8.2017 after lapse of 32 and 25 years respectively from the date of displacerfient of their properties, hence, they are not eligible for providing employment in terms of clarifications given by the Governmert uide Memo dated

22.12.2005 and another Memo dated 14.5.2010 and rejected uide Proceedrngs dated 17 .Ol .2O2O of the Collector. Nizamabad It is submitted that this Court as well as Hon'lcle Apex Court held that compassionate appointments cannot be claimed after long lapse of time. In the present cases, the petitioners are seeking compassionate appointments after 32 Years & 25 Years of acquiring land and houses. In view of the 8 r\ same, the Contempt Case filed by petitioners is liable to be disrnissed. 4 . Petitioners frted reply stating that the memo dated

22.12.2OO5 relied by the Respondents permits the submission of application by the displaced persons those who have applied for appointment after one year of their displacement, whose lands are acquired prior to issuance of G.O. Ms. No. 98, dt:

15.O4. 1986. The clarification dated 14.O5.2O|O, does not apply to the case of the Petitioners as their lands were submerged prior to issuance of G.O. Ms. No. 98, dated 15.04. 1986. It is surprising to note that, they refer atrout the delay in making representations, but in fact the policy of the Government to provide employment to the displaced persons or to their dependents as a matter of social security measure. Apart from that, the Government itself providing employment to the displaced persons after 20 to 25 years of their displacement subject to availability o[ vacancies. It is stated, memo dated 22.12.2005 was not brought to the notice of the Tribunal. The above said memo nowhere prohibits petitioners from making Applications as per the settled Law and Respondents cannot comment on the orders passed by the Apex Court which have attained frnality. The -,."} 9 orders of APAT based on the memos issued by the Government dated 22.12.2OO5 and 14.05.2O10 in OA No. 2080/2O13, have misplaced application in the case on hand and the facts of the present case. Hence, petitioners are entitled to be considered for appointment under displaced persons quota as per the policy. Respondents have clearly admitted in the memo dated

24.08.1947 that there is no limitation applicable to the displaced persons prior to issuance of G.O.Ms.No. 98. It is stated, Respondents referred about a case of a person rvho had applied for a job after 46 years, but in the case on hand, both petitioners are less than 3O years, as on date of their Application. Apart from that, displacement took place from 1975 to 1984 and policy was lramed in 1986 and they are providing employment after 25 years and still several candidates are kept waiting. Hence, respondents cannot deny the case of petitioners for appointment on the ground that, they made representations after lapse of several years. The Respondents are bound to consider the case of the Petitioners in accordance with Law as settled by the Apex Court. 5 Heard Sri P.Amarender, learned counsel for petitioners as wefl as learned Government Pleader for Services-I. 10 ',t ,:: :, t\

6. From a perusal of the material on record, it is clear that the l"t respondent issued speaking order dated Ol.l2.2Ol7 in respect of petitioners stating that they are not eligible to be considered for appointment under displaced persons quota, as the Government had already issued instructions uide Memo dated 14.05.2010 that no new Application would be received for employment from displaced persons, as the deadline set in G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 15.04.1986 and Memo dated 24.O8.1987 expired long back. However, in the iight of the observations made by this Court, Selection Committee Meeting was convened to examine Applications of petitioners on 16.01.2020 in terms of G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 15.04.1986, Government Merno dated

24.Oa.1987 Memo dated 22.12.2005 and Government Memo, dated 14.05.2010. As per G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 15.04.1986, Applications shall be made within one year from the date of actual displacement of the family and preference was prescribed. Further, Government in Memo dated 24.08.7987 clarihed that 'period of one year' does not apply to such of the persons/ families who are displaced prior to issuance of the said G.O. Thereafter, Government issued instructions uide Memo dated 22.12.2O05. Since the District Collectors are receiving Applications without following cut-off date and sending the, 6me for approval even after lapse of 2O years, the Government further clarifred in Memo dated 14.05.201O that all the Engineers-in-Chief/ Chief Engineers of Irrigation projects and the District Collectors to follow scrupulously the instructions for employment of the displaced persons under G.O.Ms.No.98 dated 15.04.1986. Admittedly, petitioners submitted Applications on 24.O8.2012 in terms of G.O.Ms.No.98. after lapse of 32 and 25 years respectively from the date of displacement of their father,s properties. Hence, their Applications were rejected in the Selection Committee Meeting held on 16.O1.2O2O.It is brought to the notice of this Court rhat in similar circumstances, the Tribunal passed order in O.A.No. 2080 of 2013 rejecting the case of applicant therein on that ground that he made Application after a gap of about 2g years and he is not eligible for consideration as per G.O.Ms.No.9g dated 15.04.1986 read with the clarihcations given uide Memo dated 22.12.2005 and another Memo dated 14.O5.2O 10. The Tribunal observed that it is settied law [hat the Courts/ Tribunal cannot interfere in the policy decision taken by the Government. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that in Dhampur Suga.r (Kashipur) Ltd.. a. Sto:te Of Ilttaranchalz, the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the case iaw on the ' lzoozy a scc 418 t2 i:.\ policy decision and scope of Judicial review and held as extracted suPra. Learned Government Pleader' in this regard' 7 . brought to the notice of this Court the order dated 03 O2'2O25 in Writ Petition No' 36516 of 2024 wherein the Division Bench' after considering the settled principles of law' held that 'in view of the judicial precedents touching the aspect of delay latches referredtointheprecedingparagraphsanduponseeingthe inordinatedelayofmorethan5Vzlears,coupledwiththefact the weak justihcation and explanation which is not plausible or satisfactory in any manner forces this Bench to hold that the instant Writ Petition suffers from delay laches and deserves to be dismissed.' In Writ APPeal Nos 166O of 2018 and 593 of 2O16' 8. by order daled 13 12'2021' the Division Bench of this Court' taking into consideration the judgment in Kullrlant Singh GiU a. State oJ Puniab (1991 Supp (1)( SCC 50a)' held that delav of 5 to 18 years was held to be inordinate in preferring a Writ Petition under Article 226 of tlrc Constitution The same analory applies in the case of petitioners who approached the authorities nearly after 30 years of the order of displacement' Learned counsel for petitioner places reliance on g. t\.e 6raer dated 30'06'2O10 in O'A No ' 10637 of 20O9' wherein ,/ l i I I I I I i l I I I I I l I i I i I I I I I the Tribunal directed the respondents to consider the case of applicant for appointment in terms of G.().Ms.No. ga, irrespective of fhe Iimitation prescribed therein ancl pass appropriate orders as per his eligibility and suitabiliry. I.Je also placed on record the juctgment n D. Subbarq.maiah u. ChieJ General Manger (HP.), APtGENco, rrgd.rabad3 and contencrs Lhat'to consider, does not mean to search for a lame excuse or just pass :,in order and dismiss claim of pe[itroner orr flimsy grounds which were not at all taken in earlicr proceedings by responCent.s, nor can they take a ground rvhjch the..r had alread1. taken in earlier proceedings and considered and rcjected by Court. Rejecting an Application / represenlation on any one of such grounds amounts to contempt of Court and disobeying orders of Court. In this case, Iearned counsel submits, this Cortrt uide order impugned directed the respondents to cr_.nsider the Applications of petitioners and take action in accorciance q.ith law. But however, respondents passed speakirrg order datecl 01. 12.2OiZ rejecting the case of petirioner s. 10. This Court, in the light of the discussion held supra and in vierx,' of the legal position placed by respondents on the ground of delay and laches, is not inclined to take into consideration the submissions of iearned counsel for petitioner ' zo tu (+) ,rrLo :6t; I t I t I I i' l1 {i} and the judgments relied on by him' The Contempt Case' in the considered opinion of this Court, is liable to be dismissed 1 l . co s ts. t2. 'fhe Contempt Case is zrccordingiy dismissed No Consequently, Miscellaneous Appiications' if any sha11 stand closed //TRUE COPY'/ To,

1. 2 3 DUg one CC to Sri. Poodattu.Amarender' Advo GP for Service-ll' High court fo il;;ti" . Two CD CoPies h r the M/ D/. L. LAKSHflII BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER IOPUC] State of Telangana lOUTl HIGH COURT DATED:01/0512025 ORDER CG.No.760 of 2O18 i !-lE S 14 -) L lt rllE flu5 o6.9 (;/ -. DISMISSING THE CONTEMPT CASE (9 {A