SERVICE LAW – DISPLACED PERSONS – EMPLOYMENT UNDER G.O.Ms.No.98, IRRIGATION (PROJ.WING) DEPARTMENT, DATED 15.04.1986 – ONE YEAR LIMITATION – EFFECT OF SUBSEQUENT GOVERNMENT MEMOS – TIME BAR REJECTION HELD UNSUSTAINABLE.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)

1. W.A. No.1289 of 2023
   The State of A.P., Irrigation and CAD (R & R) Department, rep. by its Principal Secretary & Ors.
   vs.
   Sk. Mohd. Rafi

2. W.A. No.315 of 2024
   Modiboyina Ankaiah & another
   vs.
   Sk. Mohd. Rafi & Ors.

Arising out of the order dated 05.01.2023 in W.P.(AT) No.47 of 2021.

Bench: Battu Devanand, J. & A. Hari Haranadha Sarma, J.
Citation tag in judgment: 2025:APHC:49203

2. HEADNOTES 

SERVICE LAW – DISPLACED PERSONS – EMPLOYMENT UNDER G.O.Ms.No.98, IRRIGATION (PROJ.WING) DEPARTMENT, DATED 15.04.1986 – ONE YEAR LIMITATION – EFFECT OF SUBSEQUENT GOVERNMENT MEMOS – TIME BAR REJECTION HELD UNSUSTAINABLE.
Displaced persons of irrigation projects are entitled to employment under G.O.Ms.No.98, Irrigation (Proj.Wing) Department, dated 15.04.1986. The State rejected the writ petitioner’s claim on the ground that his application was not made within one year from the date of actual displacement as stipulated in clause (iii) of the G.O. Referring to earlier orders of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal and the Division Bench judgment in State of A.P., rep. by its Principal Secretary, Water Resources Dept. vs. Rajola Jagannadha Reddy & others, Appeal No.356 of 2023, dated 17.11.2025, and memo No.480-LAR(2)/87-2, I & CAD (Proj.Wing) Department, dated 24.08.1987, the Court held that rejection of claims on the ground of limitation is “untenable and unsustainable and liable to be dismissed”. The Government Memos dated 22.12.2005, 14.05.2010, 29.10.2010 and 28.10.2016 cannot override G.O.Ms.No.98 and Memo dated 24.08.1987, which envisage compassionate appointment to displaced persons on account of loss of livelihood. Issue No.1 answered in favour of the writ petitioner.

SERVICE LAW – DISPLACED PERSONS – KANDALERU RESERVOIR PROJECT – PREPARATION OF TWO SENIORITY LISTS – ENTITLEMENT OF SON OF AWARDEE FROM DACHURU VILLAGE TO FIGURE IN WHICH LIST.
Displacement of Dachuru village under Kandaleru Reservoir Project was on 31.10.2005. On calling for applications in 2007, two seniority lists were prepared: (i) first seniority list consisting of 168 candidates pertaining to villages where water was impounded and actual displacement took place – approved vide Government Memo dated 22.10.2010; (ii) second seniority list consisting of 106 candidates pertaining to villages where water was not impounded and actual displacement was not taken place – approved vide Government Memo No.641/R&R-A2/2012-2, dated 26.12.2014. The writ petitioner, being the son of an awardee from Dachuru village, could seek inclusion, if any, only in the first seniority list where displaced persons of Dachuru village were included. He is “not entitled to seek to include his name in the second seniority list approved by the Government vide Memo, dated 26.12.2014” as that list pertained to other villages. Issue No.2 answered against the writ petitioner.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – NATURAL JUSTICE – QUASHING SECOND SENIORITY LIST CONTAINING 106 CANDIDATES WITHOUT IMPLEADING THEM – ORDER OF LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE SETTING ASIDE GOVERNMENT MEMO DATED 26.12.2014 – VALIDITY.
The writ petitioner challenged Government Memo No.641/R&R-A2/2012-2, dated 26.12.2014 approving the second seniority list containing 106 candidates under displaced persons quota. Learned Single Judge set aside the Memo and the second seniority list without impleading the 106 beneficiaries as respondents and without affording them opportunity of hearing. The Division Bench held that “setting aside the second seniority list containing 106 candidates approved by the Government vide Memo, dated 26.12.2014 without affording any opportunity to the affected parties is clear violation of principles of natural justice”. Order in W.P.(AT) No.47 of 2021 dated 05.01.2023 held unsustainable in law and facts. Issue No.3 answered in favour of appellants in W.A.No.315 of 2024.

RELIEF – RESTORATION OF SENIORITY LIST – PROTECTION OF BENEFICIARIES – DIRECT EMPLOYMENT DIRECTIONS TO BOTH WRIT PETITIONER AND APPELLANTS.
W.A.No.315 of 2024 (by displaced persons whose names were in second seniority list) allowed; order of learned Single Judge setting aside Government Memo dated 26.12.2014 is set aside and the Memo is restored; respondents 2 to 5 directed to provide employment to the appellants under displaced persons quota in terms of G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 15.04.1986 as per their turn. W.A.No.1289 of 2023 (by State) is “disposed of” with a direction to include the name of the writ petitioner in the first seniority list by following due process and to provide employment to him under displaced persons quota in terms of G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 15.04.1986 as per his turn.

3. CASE FACTS 

1. Status and background of writ petitioner (W.A. 1289/2023):

   • Writ petitioner is the son of late Massom Saheb, resident of Dachuru village, Kaluvoya Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, whose village was submerged under Kandaleru Reservoir Project.

   • Petitioner belongs to BCE community, passed S.S.C. in 1994 and Senior Secondary School Examination in December, 2010.

   • His father died on 10.02.2010, leaving behind the petitioner and six other family members.

2. Certificates and recognition as displaced family:

   • Special Deputy Collector (4th respondent) issued proof of award vide Special RGC No.118/2015, dated 05.10.2015.

   • Tahsildar, Kaluvoya Mandal (5th respondent) issued:

     • Displacement certificate in L.Dis.(A) 914/2015, dated 06.10.2015, certifying that the father of the petitioner shifted residence from Dachuru village to Autonagar Works Colony, Padarupalli, Nellore Mandal as his house was submerged under Kandaleru Reservoir.

     • No earning member certificate, dated Nil.08.2015.

   • Petitioner claimed that in view of these documents, he is a displaced person entitled to employment in terms of G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 15.04.1986 and related instructions.

3. Government action – seniority lists:

   • District Collector (3rd respondent) sent second seniority list of displaced persons under Kandaleru Reservoir on 30.12.2011 and 30.01.2014 for approval.

   • Government approved a second seniority list of 106 displaced persons under Kandaleru Reservoir vide Government Memo No.641/R&R-A2/2012-2, dated 26.12.2014.

   • Petitioner's name was not included in that second seniority list.

4. Original proceedings before Tribunal and Single Judge:

   • Aggrieved by non-inclusion of his name in the second seniority list, petitioner filed O.A. No.649 of 2016 before A.P. Administrative Tribunal.

   • On abolition of Tribunal, the O.A. was transferred to High Court and renumbered as W.P.(AT) No.47 of 2021.

   • Learned Single Judge, by order dated 05.01.2023,

     • Set aside Government Memo No.641/R&R-A2/2012-2, dated 26.12.2014, approving second seniority list of 106 candidates;

     • Directed official respondents to consider including petitioner’s name in seniority list under displaced persons quota of Kandaleru Reservoir Project and to provide appointment in suitable post as per eligibility and roster, and to take action as per seniority fixed in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 15.04.1986.

5. Appeals:

   • W.A.No.1289 of 2023 filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh against the order of the learned Single Judge, mainly contending that:

     • Under clause (iii) of G.O.Ms.No.98, applications must be made within one year from date of actual displacement;

     • Displacement of Dachuru village was 31.10.2005, but petitioner applied for employment only on 13.10.2015, hence time-barred;

     • Two seniority lists were prepared in 2007 – first list of 168 candidates (villages where water impounded and displacement took place) approved on 22.10.2010; second list of 106 candidates (villages where water not impounded and displacement not taken place) approved on 26.12.2014;

     • Dachuru village and its eligible displaced persons were included in the first seniority list, hence petitioner could not seek inclusion in the second seniority list.

   • W.A.No.315 of 2024 filed by two displaced persons (Modiboyina Ankaiah & Maddesi Venkata Siva Prasad) whose names were included as Serial Nos. 32 and 85 in the second seniority list of 106 candidates:

     • Their lands were acquired under Kandaleru Reservoir Project, awards passed and compensation paid; they applied for employment under G.O.Ms.No.98;

     • Second seniority list approved on 26.12.2014, but not implemented and no employment given;

     • On enquiry in March 2024, they came to know that second seniority list was set aside in W.P.(AT) No.47 of 2021;

     • They were not impleaded as respondents in the writ petition though directly affected; they contend that setting aside the list without hearing them violates principles of natural justice and deprives them of employment opportunity.

4. FINDINGS OF THE COURT (ISSUES & REASONS)

The Division Bench framed three issues (para 7 of judgment):

1. Issue No.1 – Entitlement of writ petitioner to appointment under displaced persons quota as per G.O.Ms.No.98 r/w Memo dated 24.08.1987.

   • Court noted the admitted facts: petitioner is son of awardee from Dachuru village; displacement date 31.10.2005; certificates of displacement and no earning member; application for employment filed on 13.10.2015.

   • The State relied on the one-year limitation in clause (iii) of G.O.Ms.No.98.

   • The Bench referred to the detailed discussion in Appeal No.356 of 2023, dated 17.11.2025 (State of A.P. vs. Rajola Jagannadha Reddy & others), extracted extensively in para 8(d) of this judgment.

   • It noted that the Government itself relaxed the one-year condition by Memo No.480-LAR(2)/87-2, dated 24.08.1987, that Tribunal and High Court orders directing consideration irrespective of limitation had attained finality, and that rejection solely on limitation was held “untenable and unsustainable”.

   • The Bench held that, in light of this legal position, the one-year limitation cannot be a ground to deny appointment to the writ petitioner, and Issue No.1 is answered in favour of the writ petitioner.

2. Issue No.2 – Whether writ petitioner is entitled to inclusion of his name in second seniority list approved by Government Memo dated 26.12.2014.

   • The Court reiterated the factual matrix:

     • First seniority list of 168 candidates – villages where water impounded and actual displacement took place – approved on 20/22.10.2010;

     • Second seniority list of 106 candidates – villages where water not impounded and actual displacement not taken place – approved on 26.12.2014.

   • Dachuru village displacement was 31.10.2005, and displaced persons of Dachuru village were included in the first seniority list.

   • Therefore, if petitioner wanted inclusion, he had to claim in the first seniority list, not in the second list pertaining to other villages.

   • The Court held that considering these factual positions, petitioner is not entitled to seek inclusion of his name in the second seniority list, and Issue No.2 is answered against the writ petitioner.

3. Issue No.3 – Whether interests of appellants in W.A. No.315 of 2024 were seriously affected by order dated 05.01.2023 and whether that order is in violation of principles of natural justice.

   • Admittedly, the writ petitioner challenged the second seniority list of 106 candidates approved by Government Memo dated 26.12.2014.

   • Learned Single Judge set aside the Memo and entire second seniority list without impleading any of those 106 candidates as parties and without giving them opportunity of hearing.

   • The Bench held that these 106 candidates are “really affected parties” and that setting aside the second seniority list without hearing them is a clear violation of principles of natural justice.

   • Consequently, the appellants in W.A.No.315 of 2024 were rightly permitted to file appeal, and the order of the learned Single Judge was held unsustainable in law. Issue No.3 was answered in favour of the appellants in W.A.No.315 of 2024.

On the basis of these findings, the Court concluded (para 9) that the order of the learned Single Judge is unsustainable under law and facts and liable to be set aside.

5. FINAL JUDGMENT / OPERATIVE DIRECTIONS

(A) W.A. No.315 of 2024 – Allowed

At para 10, the Division Bench ordered:

1. The order dated 05.01.2023 in W.P.(AT) No.47 of 2021 is set aside.

2. Government Memo No.641/R&R-A2/2012-2, dated 26.12.2014, approving the second seniority list of 106 candidates, is restored.

3. Respondent Nos.2 to 5 in W.A.No.315 of 2024 are directed to provide employment to the appellants under displaced persons quota in terms of G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 15.04.1986, as per their turn.

(B) W.A. No.1289 of 2023 – Disposed of with Directions

At para 11, the Court disposed of the State’s appeal as follows:

• The appellant (State) shall include the name of the respondent/writ petitioner in the first seniority list by following due process and shall provide employment to him under displaced persons quota in terms of G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 15.04.1986, as per his turn.

(C) Costs and Miscellaneous

• No order as to costs (para 12).

• Miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed.