The High Court · 2025

in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the orders dated 12-09-2023, in WP No 3'128 of 2017 , passed by this Hon'ble Single Judge of this Hon'ble court in the interest of Justice. Counsel for the Appellants: GP FOR SERVICES-I Counsel for the Sole Respondent: SRI MOHD. YUSIF, REP. FOR SRI A.SAI CHAKRAVARTHY The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SIIAVILI AND THE HON,BLE SRI JUSTICE LN(MI NARAYANA ALISHETTY WRIT APPEAL No.143O oF 2024 JI,DGMENT, Pet te Hon bte sn Jusne Abtdnand Kunat s|@dti) Aggrieved by the order, dated 12'09 '2023' passed in W.P.No.3 128 of 2OL7 by a learned Single Judge of this Court, the present Writ Appeal is hled'

2. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the appellants and Sri Mohd. Yusif, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 3. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the appellants had contended that the respondent's land acquired by the Government through land acquisition proceedings for the purpose of submergence of Priyadarshini Jurala Project' Vide G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 15'04' 1986, the State Government has taken a decision to provide employment to individuals whose land was acquired for a public PurPose, with the condition that the 2 AKS.J & LNA,J U.A. No 1430 of 2024 eligible candidates shall apply for emplo5rment within a period of one year from the date of actual clisplacement of the family. Admittedly, the respondent has submitted his applications seeking emplol.ment under displaced persons/land looser persons quota on

03.07.2000 and 18.06.2004, which were submitted well beyond one-year period stipulated aforementioned G.O. When representation of the respondent was not considered, he has approached the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short, 'the TribunalJ by filing O.A.No.34 I of 2OOZ and the Tribunal was pleased to dispose of the said O.A. uide order, dated 29.OI.2OO7, directing the appellants to consider the rdpresentation of the respondent, dated 18.O6.2OO4 and pass appropriate orders. Consequently, the case of the respondent was considered and the sarne was rejected uide order, dated 07.12.2007 and 26.12.2007, stating that the Land Acquisition Officer has passed au,ards, dated

23.01.1993 and 29.O5.1999, however, the respondent 3 A I(S,J & LNA.J W.A.No. l430 ot 2024 failed to submit his application for seeking employment under the scheme within a stipulated time of one year. Therefore, his case could not be considered for appointment. 4. Questioning the rejection order, dated

07.72.2OO7 and 26.12.2OO7, the respondent has once again approached the Tribunal by filing O.A.No. l72S of 2008 and the Tribunal was pleased to set aside .the rejection order, dated 07. 12.2OOZ uide ord.er. d.ated

24.08.2011. Again the case of the respondent was considered and the sarne was rejected uide proceedings, dated 18.03.2011. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent has once again approached the Tribunal by hling O.A.No.1671 of 2016 and the Tribunal was pleased to dispose of the said O.A. uide order, dated 15.06 .2016, directing the appellants to re- consider the case of the respondent for appointment under displaced persons quota rn terms of G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 15.04.1986. The appellants have 4 AI(S..J & LNA,.I W.A.No I ,1.'lO of 2024 re-considered the case of respondent and the same was rejectcd uide order, dated 15. lI.2006

5. Aggricved by the said rejection order, dated

15.1 1.2006, the respondent has approached this Court by filing W.P.No.312B of 2Ol7 and the learned Single .ludgc of this Court was pleased to allow the Writ Petition b.y setting aside the rejection order, clated

15.11.2006 and directed the appellants to appoint the respondent as Office Subordinate or in any ojher suitable post, basing upon his qualifications, without appreciating any of the contentions raised by the appellants

6. Learned Government Pleader h:rd further contended that according to the State Government's policy, eligible candidates must apply for employment within a period of one year from the date o[ actual displacemcnt of the family. Since the respondent did not submit his application within the stipulated time, the qucstion of considering his case for appointment under the displacement quota would not arise 5 AKS.J & LNA,J W.A.No.1430 ot2024 Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the Writ Appeal by setting aside the order, dated 12.09.2023 passed in W.P.No.3l28 of 2Ol7 by the learned Single Judge and a-llow the Writ APPeal. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent had contended that the land of the respondent was acquired for Priyadarshini Jurala Project and the Land Acquisition Ofhcer passed an award on 21.07.1999. However, the respondent has applied for the said posts within a stipulated time, but the appellants misplaced his application. In those circumstances, the respondent has once again applied on O3.O7.2000, well within the one year period. When the appellants were not considering the case of the respondent, he has submitted severa,l representations starting from 18.06.2004 and the respondent has approached the Tribunal multiple times. The Tribunal consistently had set aside the rejection orders and directed the appellants to re-consider the case of the .-.-respondent. In spite of repeated directions, the 6 AKS,J & LNA.J W.A.No.143O of 2024 appellants continued to reject the respondent's case on the ground that his application was not submitted within tht: one-year period. The learned Single Judge was also pleased to allow the Writ Petition by directing the appt:llants to provide employment to the respondent under displacement quota.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the .judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in State of Mgsore and another v. Sged. Mahmood and. othersr, wherein, the Honourable Supreme Court has held that if the Court passes dirctions to consider the case of an employee for promotion and it is rejected, then the Courts carr give a positive mandamus, Hence, the learned Single Judge was justified in giving positive mandarnus to the appellants to providc employment to the respondent under displacemcnt quota. Therefore, there are no merits in the Writ Appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. AIR l()rr8 S( l l ; 7 AKS.J & I,NA,J w.A.N"o. 143O of 2024 g. This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by both the parties is of the view that the respondent has approached the Tribunal multiple times and the Tribunal has consistently set aside the rejection order and directed the appellants to re-consider the case of the respondent' In spite of repeated directions passed by the Tribunal, the appellants have not considered the case of the respondent and have rejected only on the ground that the respondent has not submitted his application '"vithin a period of one year, as stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 15.O4. 1986.

10. It is undisputed that the appellants received the respondent's application on 22.11.1999 and that the respondent submitted another application on O3.O7.2OOO, claiming that the earlier application was misplaced. If the appellants misplaced the application' it is not the respond,ent's fault' Hence the learned Single Judge was justihed in giving positive mandamus 8 ,1KS..l & L:,lA.J It'.A. No. 143O of 2024 to the appellants to consider the case of the respondent for appointment to the post of Office Subordinate or any other suitable post. In view of the law laid dowr-r by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Syed. Mahmood. (supra 1), a positive mandamus can be given. Therefore, the appellants are directed to provide employment to the respondent under the displacement quota.

11. With thc above observations/directions. the Writ Appeal is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel. miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shail star-rd closed. //TRUE COPY/T SD/- K. S LESHI DEPUTY REG TRAR SECTION OFFICER To, 'l . The Principal Secretary, lrrigation and CAD Department, (pW.LA.lV-RR), Department Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

2. The District Collector, Chairman of Selection, Committee lrrlahabubnagar District at lVlahabubnagar

3. The Joint Collector, Member of Selection, Committee Mahabub Nagar District at Mahabub Nagar.

4. The Chief Engineer/ Member Convener of Selection Committee Priyadarshini Jurala Project. Circle No- 1, Gadwal Mahabubnagar Distirtct

5. The Superintending Engineer, Priyadarshini Jurala Project Circle No-l , Gadwal l\,4ahabubnagar District

6. The District Collector, Wanaparthy Wanaparthy District 7. The Joint Collector, Wanaparthy Wanaparthy District

8. The Chief Engineer, lrrigation Circle pebbair Wanaparthy District. 9 The superintending Engineer, lrrigation circre pebbair wanaparthy District. '10. One CC to SRI A.SAt CHAKRAVARTUy, nOvocate tOpUCl " Iffi":"?:Jis,t fo* SERVICES-|, Hish court for the stare of reransana at

12. Two CD Cooies BSR GJP Ft- HIGH COURT DATED: 1OtO1t2O2S 1\{E SATc' Q,-. q J [1 ' ; 'l 1r; I I JUDGMENT WA.No.1430 of 2024 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT APPEAI. WITHOUT COSTS y6 dKaA w-_ ff,{aa