APHC010143772025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 7471/2025 Between: Meesala Laxmana Rao, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. A VARALAKSHMI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I 2. GP FOR SERVICES II 2 HCGR, J W.P.No.7471 of 2025 The Court made the following order: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief/s:- “…to issue a Writ or Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioner for appointment in a suitable post as per his qualification in terms of G.O.Ms.No.98 Irrigation and CAD (PW) Department dated 15.04.1986 as per the order in WP No. 2436 of 2011 as well as the verdict in SLP No.14305 of 2011 and in denying the claim of the petitioner while considering similarly placed persons for appointment further, in not including the name of the petitioner in the list prepared by the respondents though he is eligible as well as in rejecting the case of the petitioner by the respondent authority dated 22.05.2023 as illegal, arbitrary and also oppose to Article 14 of the Constitution of India consequentially direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment in a suitable post as per his qualification in terms of G.O.Ms.No.98, Irrigation and CAD (PW) Department, dated 15.04.1986 as per the order in WP No.2436 of 2011 as well as the verdict in SLP No.14305 of 2011 forthwith and to pass such other order or orders…” 2. Heard Ms A.Varalakshmi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-II appearing on behalf of respondents. 3. The petitioner claims to be a land loser and a displaced person, as the respondents acquired the petitioner’s property for Vamsadhara Project in Srikakulam District way back in the year 1973. The petitioner’s father was the person, who was affected by such acquisition. As a displaced person, both he as well as his 3 HCGR, J W.P.No.7471 of 2025 dependents are entitled for the benefits that are extended to displaced persons. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.98, Irrigation (PROJ.WING) Department, dated 15.04.1986, by which a policy decision was taken to provide jobs to displaced persons or their dependents and also laid down terms and conditions for making such appointments. As such, the petitioner claimed to be beneficiary under the scheme formulated by the Government in terms of G.O.Ms.No.98, Irrigation (PROJ.WING) Department, dated 15.04.1986, and a claim was made before the respondents. The petitioner submitted representations dated 22.02.2013, 10.05.2013 and 07.05.2013 to the Tahsildar, Hira Mandal, Srikakulam District, to consider his case in terms of G.O.Ms.No.98, Irrigation (PROJ.WING) Department, dated 15.04.1986 and subsequent G.Os., which are stated to be pending. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is entitled for the benefit of the scheme in terms of G.O.Ms.No.98, Irrigation (PROJ.WING) Department, dated 15.04.1986. Even this Court in W.P.(AT)No.174 of 2021 and batch, while considering the similar issue, by an order dated 13.12.2022 directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners therein in terms of G.O.Ms.No.98, Irrigation (PROJ.WING) Department, dated 15.04.1986. Learned counsel further submits that it would suffice to 4 HCGR, J W.P.No.7471 of 2025 direct the respondents to consider the representations submitted by the petitioner. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, submits that claim made by the petitioner in representations, alleged to have been submitted way back in the year 2013, cannot be considered at this length of time. 6. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner seems to have submitted representations way back in the year 2013 to the Tahsildar, who in turn forwarded the same to the 3rd respondent, for consideration of the claim of the petitioner under G.O.Ms.No.98 dated 15.04.1986, the same has not been decided and now, petitioner may be permitted to submit fresh representation. 7. As the petitioner claims to be the project displaced person and is entitled for the benefit under the aforesaid G.O.Ms.No.98 dated 15.04.1986, this Court is of the opinion that petitioner be permitted to submit a fresh representation to the 3rd respondent, who, in turn, shall consider the same and decide the claim of the petitioner in terms of the benefits, if any, accrued under the aforesaid G.O. 5 HCGR, J W.P.No.7471 of 2025 8. Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of, permitting the petitioner to submit fresh representation within a period of two (02) weeks from today and on such representation, the 3rd respondent shall consider and dispose of the same, in accordance with law and in terms of eligibility and entitlement prescribed under G.O.Ms.No.98, Irrigation (PROJ.WING) Department, dated 15.04.1986, within a period of four (04) weeks thereafter. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Date: 17.04.2025 KBN