pgnja. Rajkumar v. Hocnampacl, Nizamabad District

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR lRRl AND COMM AREA DEV The Court made the following: ORDER -, ] HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAXA WRIT PETITION No. 14339 OF 2()19 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed challenging the speaking order uid.e Memo dated 15.06.2016 and the action of respondents in not considering,the case of petitioner to the post of Junior Assistant or any other suitable post under displaced persons quota on tl.e ground that he appU.a beyond the period of limitation as prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.g8, dated f 5.O4.1986 read with Memo dated 24.08.1987.

2. Petitioner's case is that their house submerged in SRSP Reservoir and they were displaced during 78.03.1978 uide Award No. 17 /1977-98. It is stated that Government issued G.O.Ms.No. 98, dated 15.04.1986 and G.O.ttils.No. 68, dated 17.05.2074 to frll up 5O7o vacancies in Junior Assistant / ffiists and the cadres below arising in Major and Minor Irrigation and power projects to be filled up by the displaced persons. Petitioner states that he submitted representation to Respondents I and 2 on 3O.O9.2O 14 to provide appointment in terms of G.O.Ms. No. 98, on which, the revenue off-rcials made correspondence with the lst respondent who issued impugned speaking order informing that Selection Committee reviewed \ 2 and rejected the case on the ground that the time limit set in G.O.Ms. No. 98 and Memo dated 24.08.1987 expired long back. Again, petitioner is stated to "'have made representation on

02.02.1997 to the lst respondent not to insist for time limit as per letter dated 23.05.2015 addressed by the lst respondent wherein he referred Suppeme Court orders stating that limitation will not apply for the awards passed before issuance of G.O.Ms. No. 98, dated 15.O4.1986. But, so far, no orders are passed thereon.

3. The l"t respondent - Superintending Engineer hled counter stating that house prop€rty of petitioner's father was acquired for the purpose of construction of Sri ramsagar Project and compensation amount was also paid. While so, petitioner filed the subject Writ Petition seeking a direction to Respondents to consider their cases in any suitable post under displaced persons quota. The lst respondent had issued speaking order dated 15.06.2016 stating that, petitioner is not eligible 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 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.Oa.t98T expired long back. -_-_ 3 According to this respondent, as per G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 15.04.1986, for securing employment 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 displacement 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 shall draw up a list of such Applications and forward the same to the project authorities for appointment. Further, Government in Memo dated 24.08.1987 clarifred that 'period of one year' does not apply to such of the persons/families who are displaced prior to issuance crf the said G.O. It is stated that Government constituted Selection Committee uiCe G.O.Ms.No.266 dated 19.09.1994 read with G.O.Ms.No. 135, dated 17.11.2OO9 to selecr the candidates among the Applications received fbr appointment subject to other preferences/ conditions prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.98, with the following officers. i) ii) iii) District Collector concerned as Chairman Joint Collector of the District concerned as Member Superintending Engineer of the concerned project as Mernber-Convenor 4 Further it is also stated that Gov€rnment issued instructions uide Memo dated 22.L2.2005 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 were issued to the District Collectors to forward the applications of the displaced persons to the concerned authorities for appointment even though they have applied lor appointment after one year of ttreir displacement vide Memo' No 480- LAR(2]187 -2 dated 24.8.1987. Because, by that time, when the G.O-Ms.No.98 came into force, tJle displaced Persons might have crossed the time bound period of one yeal to apply for appointment, and not to go on receiYing such applications by the District Administrators/ Project Administrator after elaPsed period of decades", Since the District Collectors are recelvlng Applications without following cut-off date and sending the same for approval even after lapse of 20 years, the Government issued clarification in Memo dated 14.05.2010 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 15.04. 1986. This respondent stated that petitioner submitted representation on 10.12.2O13 in terms of G'O.Ms-No.98- after 5 lapse of 32 years frve months from the date of displaceme nt o[ his father's properties. It is stated that in similar circumstances, APAT passed orders in O.A.No. 2O80 of 2O13 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 qrith the clarifications given uid,e Memo dated 22.I2.2OO5 and another Memo dated 14.05.2010. The Tribunal observed that it is settled law that t.I e Courts/ Tribunal cannot interfere in the Policy decision taken by the Government. tt is brought to the notice of this Court that in DIIAftIPIIR SUGAR (KAS,HIPUP.) LTD. Vs. STATE OF UftARAI,tCXaat, tll-e Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the case law on the policy decision and scope of Judicial review and held as follows: " In our judgrnent, it is well-settled that public authorities must have liberty and freedom in framing poticies. No doubt, the discretion is not absolute, unqualified or unfettered or uncanalised and judiciary has control over all executive actions. At the same time, however, it is well established that courts are ill-equipped to deat with these matters, decisions have to be taken by governmental authorities keeping in view several factors, and it is not possible for courts to consider competing claims and conflicting interests and to conclude which may the balance tilts. There are no objectives, justifiable or manageable standards to judge the issues nor can such questions be deqided on priority considerations' ' (2007) 8 scc-418 6 It is stated, the government has taken a consclous decision not to accept the applications after a lapse of decades and permitted the District Collectors and Project Authorities to fix up cut-off date to receive applications from this category of displaced persons and had given clarifrcations through Memo daled 22.12.2005 and another Memo dated 14.05.2O10. It is thus clear that relaxation of cut-off date i.e. the period of limitation of one year based on the date of displacement cannot be stretched to accommodate the requests for providing jobs even after lapse of decades from the date when G.O.Ms.No.98 and Memo dated 24.O8.19878 were issued. The Tribunal in the O.A. concluded that the applicant had applied for the job on

29.O7.2OO3 i.e. after a gap of about 17 years and he is not eligible for consideration as per G.O.Ms. No. 98, dated 15.04.1986 read with clarification Memos. Finally, it is stated that this Court as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court, time and again, held that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a right alter long lapse of time. Since in the present case, petitioner sought appointment after 32 years 5 months of acquiring house, on the ground of delay the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. {: 7

4. Heard Sri P. Amarender, learned caunsel for petitioner as well as Ms. B. Annapurna, counsel representing learned Govemment Pleader for S&vices{.

5. From a perusal of the material on record, it is clear that the 1"t respondent issued speaking order dated 15.06.2016 stating that petitioner is not etigible 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 disptaced persons, as the deadline set in G.O.Ms.No.98, dated

15.04.1986 and Memo dated.24.O8.L987 expired long back. 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.O8.1987 clarifred 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 uiCe Memo dated 22.L2.2OO5.6. Since the District Collectors are receiving Applications without following cut-off date and sending the same for approval even after lapse of 2O years, the Government further clarihed in Memo dated 14.05.20 lO that all the Engineer-in-Chiefs/ Chief Engineers of Irrigation projects and a 8 the District Collectors to follow scrupulously the instructions for employment of the displaced persons rJnder G'O'Ms'No'98 dated 15.O4.1986. Admittedly, petitioner submitted Application / representatio n on lC .12.2O13 in terms of G'O'Ms'No'98' after lapse of 32 years hve months from the date of displacement' Hence, his Application was rejected. tt is brought to the notice of this Court that in similar circumstances, the Tribunal passed order in O.A. No. 2O8O of 2O13 rejecting ttre case of applicant therein on that ground that he made Application after a gap of about 28 years and he is not etigible for consideration as per G.O.Ms.No.9S dated 15-O4.1986 read with the clarifications gpven uide Memo dated 22-12.20C.5 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 also brought to tfre notice of this Court that in Dhampur Sugar (kashipur) ltd' rts' Sttte Of uttaroLncho,l2, the Hon'bte Supreme Court considered the case law on the policy decision and scope of Judicial review and held as extracted supra.

6. Learned Government Pleader, in this regard, brought to the notice of this Court the order dated 03 'O2 '2025 in Writ Petition No. 36516 ol 2024 wherein the Divisiorl Bench, ' 1zooz1 s scc 4 t8 9 after considering the settled principles of law, held th.at 'in view of the judicial precedents touching the aspect of delay latches referred to in the preceding paragraphs and upon seeing the inordinate delay of more than 5 Yz years, coupled w'ith the fact the weak justification 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.'

7. In Writ Appeal Nos. 1660 of 2O18 and 593 of 2O16, by order dated 13.12.2021, the Division Bench of this Court, taking into consideration the judgment 'tn Kuhtant Singh Gitl u. Stc,te of Punjab (1991 Supp (lX SCC 5O4), held tJ'at delav of 5 to 18 years was held to be inordinate in preferring a Writ Petition under Article 226 of tlnle Constitution. The same analory applies in the case of petitioners who approached the authorities nearly after 3O years of the order of displacement.

8. Learned counsel for petitioner places reliance on \ the order dated 30.O6.2O10 in O.A. No. 10637 of 20O9, wherein the Tribunal directed the respondents to consider the case of applicant for appointment in terms of G.O.Ms.No. 98, irrespective of the limitation prescribed therein and pass appropriate orders as per his eligibility and suitability' The above order is conhrmed by this Court in Writ Petition No' 2436 I I n \ l0 of 2OIL dated 08.02.2011 and the matter was carried to the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil),No. f43O5 of 2011 which was dismissed, hence, the la'is is settled that displaced persons are permitted to submit their applications irrespective of the houses acquired during 1977-7a prior to issue of G.O. and the speaking order is non-est in the eye of law and the same is liable to be set aside.

9. However, this Court, in view of the legal position placed by respondents on the ground of delay and laches, is not inclined to take into consideration the submissions of learned counsel for petitioner and the judgments relied on by him. The Writ Petition, in the considered opinion of this Court, is liable to be dismissed.

10. costs. 1 1. The Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed. No Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/- K. AMMAJI DEPUTY REGISTRAR secrf;*orrrcen To,

1. One CC to Sri Poodaftu Amarender, Advocate [OPUC] 2. Two CCs to GP for lrrigation and Common Area Development, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

3. Two CD CoPies TJ GJP HIGH COURT DATED:2810512025 ! ORDER WP.No.14339 of 2019 -,.1> HE.S 14 I ,.t 28 AIJC 205 r{' \ +,i r'ATc11a() DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS a 7 /.a