Date of reserved for orders : 29.06.2026 Date of pronouncement : 25.09.2026 Date of uploading : 25.09.2026 APHC010592212023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THE 25th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA WRIT APPEAL NO: 1206 OF 2023 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent by the orders of the learned Single Judge Her Lordships Hon'ble Smt. Justice V.SUJATHA passed in W.P.No.33805 of 2022, dated 112-10-202 Between: 1. The Andhra Pradesh Generation Corporation, Rep. by its Managing Director, Vidyuth Soudha, Gunadala, Vijayawada. 2. The Chief Engineer (O and M), RTPP, V. V.Reddy Nagar, YSR Kadapa District ...Petitioners AND 1. E RAJASEKHAR, S/o. Rama Subbaiah, Aged about 29 years, Rio. H.No.4/35 A, R.T.P.P Road, Mudharur (P AND V), YSR Kadapa District. 2. E Rama Subbaiah, S/o. Venkata Subbanna, Aged about 50 years, Rio. H.No.4/35 A, R.T.P.P Road, Mudharur (P AND V), YSR Kadapa District. 3. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Energy Department, Secretariat Buildings, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2 4. The Revenue Division Officer, YSR Kadapa ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: NAGARAJU NAGURU, Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondents: G V SHIVAJI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES I 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND And THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA WRIT APPEAL No.1206 of 2023 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri A. Hari Haranadha Sarma) Introductory:- This Writ Appeal is directed against the orders dated 12.10.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. No. 33805 of 2022. [ii] The respondents Nos.3 and 4 in the sad writ petition are the appellants herein. Respondents No.1 and 2 herein are the writ petitioners. Respondents No.3 and 4 herein are the respondents No.1 and 2 in the writ petition. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred as per their ranking in the writ petition as the writ petitioner and the respondents. Case of the writ petitioners:- 3. [i] The petitioner No. 1 is the son of petitioner No. 2. Land in an extent of Ac.0.60 cents in Survey No.368/1b of Kasinepalli village, 4 Muddanur Mandal, YSR Kadapa District was acquired for RTPP Stage-1 Railway Track in the year 1992. On 09.11.1993 within one year as per the G.O., the 2nd petitioner made an application for employment promised but the same was not considered. Then the 2nd petitioner along with 42 others filed Writ Petition No.27643 of 2007 before the Hon'ble High Court and the same was disposed of vide orders dated 26.04.2010 directing the respondents to consider the application of the petitioners in the writ petition in proper perspective, and that the applications of the writ petitioners shall be processed by the selection committee and prepare selection list taking into consideration the eligibility criteria and to provide employment. [ii] The second petitioner attended the interview in the year 2013 at the Collector Office. As his health was deteriorating, request was made by him to consider appointment of his son/1st petitioner for employment under land loser category. A list of land losers was issued on 02.02.2014. In the said list, the 1st petitioner was placed in Sl. No. 47. All the candidates above Sl. No.47 were appointed. [iii] Thereafter, the 3rd respondent addressed a letter to the 1st petitioner vide Letter No. CE/O&M/RTPP/GM(HR)/PO-B/JAO/B4/F.LL/ D.No.2080/2019 dated 12.06.2018, directing the 1st petitioner to attend the office of the 3rd respondent on 13.06.2019 at 11.00 a.m. with all original documents, as the District Selection Committee is meeting for preparing 5 merit list of the candidate, for providing employment under land loser quota, scheduled on 18.06.2019 at 03.00p.m. in the District Collectorate, Kadapa. The 3rd DSC merit list was prepared as per the instructions issued in Memo No.D(HRAIR)/JS(Per)/DS(ESH)/AS(IR)P.O.H./80/2018 dated 22.03.2019. The 1st petitioner was placed in Sl.No.1. But the candidature of the 1st petitioner was not considered for providing employment. Again a representation dated 31.08.2019 was made. Pursuant to the same, proceedings vide Letter No.CE/O&M/RTPP/GM (HR)/PO-B/JAO/B4/ F.LL/ D.No.3213/19, dated 13.09.2019 issued stating that the 1st petitioner attended the 3rd DSC meeting, but as on that date the final award relating to his land was pending, and that his case will be considered after passing of award by RDO, where as the stand of the respondents that award is not passed is incorrect. [iv] Further case of the petitioners is that they have met the peoples Representative i.e., MLA of Jammalamadugu constituency, who has in turn wrote letter to the respondents to take action as per the rules, In response to the same, the 3rd respondent addressed a letter to the 2nd petitioner vide letter No. CE/O&M/RTPP/SE/ADM/PO/JAO/F.LL/ D.No.1449/2020 dated 23.03.2020, stating the same reason. Again the petitioner made a representation dated Nil, received by the 3rd respondent on 25.11.2021, who forwarded the same to the 2nd respondent. In the said representation, the 2nd petitioner made a request to provide livelihood to the 6 1st petitioner either on CDWC or on contract labour or in maintenance works in APGENCO. However, no action has taken. [v] It is further claimed by the petitioners that in similar cases, this Court vide W. P.No.1053 of 1995 dated 08.07.2005 held that the land loser shall be considered taking into consideration their age at the time of passing of award, and the same was confirmed in the Writ Appeal No.130 of 2006. Even SLP filed against the same was rejected. [vi] It is the further case of the petitioners that the G.O.Ms. No.98 contemplates a scheme that the displaced land persons have to be considered for employment on temporary basis immediately, with further provisions that they shall be regularized, whenever regular vacancies arise. There are number of vacancies in the categories of Junior Plant Attendant and other the categories to which the 1st petitioner is eligible and qualified. In spite of that the respondents are not considering his employment. Contention of the 3rd and 4th respondents: 4. Notifications dated 05.01.2011 and 17.10.2011 were issued for filling up the vacancies for the posts of JPA. The qualification was acquired by the 1st petitioner in April 2014. Appointment orders to 88 eligible candidates were given. Name of the petitioner was not reflected in two recommendations made by DSC. The 1st petitioner was recommended only in third DSC 24.01.2014. There are no notified vacancies available for 7 the posts of JPA under the land loser category. The land losers’ cases for employment were considered subject to eligibility and seniority as per notification. Only 50% notified JPA vacancies are earmarked for the land losers. The findings and directions of the learned Single Judge in the Writ Petition:- 5. [i] Application for appointment was made within one year in terms of G.O.Ms.No.98. [ii] Land was acquired in the year 1992. But till date no appointment was provided to the petitioner. [iv] Even in 2020 and 2023 appointments were made in respect of the persons, some land losers. Hence, appointment of the petitioner shall be considered. Arguments in the appeal:- For the appellants [respondents No.3 and4 in the writ petition] :- 6. Learned Single Judge failed to consider:- (i) Request of the 2nd petitioner was against the land loser quota against DSC notification dated 17.10.2011 was not considered as he did not possess a required qualification in terms of G.O.Ms.No.98. 8 (ii) All the posts notified under the notification dated 17.10.2011 were duly filled by the year 2013. (iii) The first petitioner made an application in the year 2014, by which time the appointment pursuant to the notification of 2011 was came to an end. (iv) By the time of constitution of 3rd DSC, all the posts notified pursuant to the notification dated 17.10.2011 were already been filled. (v) More than twelve years have lapsed since the issuance of the notification in the year 2011. Therefore, no such direction for appointment/employment can be issued at this belated stage. (vi) In fact, the 1st petitioner did not possess required qualification for a JPA post i.e. ITI Trades. (vii) As per the clause 4 (II) of the G.O.Ms.No.98 dated 15.04.1986 - the candidates eligible for appointment under the scheme shall be displaced persons or his/her son, daughter or spouse, there being no other earning member in the family. (a) On 29.09.2012 daughter of the 2nd petitioner i.e., E.Divya Bharati submitted representation enclosing her Diploma and B.Tech (ECE) certificates. From the said application, her father's occupation disclosed as agriculture and 1st petitioner was shown as stating studying. The 2nd 9 petitioner was shown as employee working as conductor in APSRTC. Therefore, the appellant -Corporation was misled. Her name was not included in selection list at the time of 2nd DSC as she did not possess requisite ITI qualification for the JPA post. (b) Subsequently, the 1st petitioner submitted representation enclosing SSC and Intermediate Certificate applying for JPA post. However, the first petitioner acquired ITI only in the year 2014. The 1st petitioner was placed at Sl.No.47 and in the remarks column it was mentioned that the final award is pending after passing of award during the 3rd DSC meeting. (c) The appellants addressed a letter to the APSRTC to confirm the employment of the 2nd petitioner. A letter was received from APSRTC informing that the 2nd petitioner joined in APSRTC as a casual conductor and retired in 2019. There shall be non-earning member, since the 2nd petitioner was in some employment, the 1st petitioner cannot be considered as eligible on the ground that there are earning members in the family. For the respondents 1 and 2 herein [writ petitioners ]:- 7. (i) The application submitted by the 2nd writ petitioner was made within the prescribed time and for the reasons best-known, no action was taken. 10 (ii) There was continuous correspondence in the matter, and the letters addressed by the respondents indicate that the 1st writ petitioner and the 2nd writ petitioner were placed in the merit list at Serial Nos.47 and 1, respectively. (iii) The contention that the petitioners were not eligible cannot be accepted. (iv) Employment was provided to persons who were lower in rank/ merit list than the petitioners. But the case of the petitioners is not considered. (v) The appellants are taking divergent and contradictory stands. The employment of the 2nd petitioner in APSRTC as a contract employee was opted in disguise for survival of the family. (vi) The orders of the learned Single Judge are well reasoned and there are no grounds to interfere. 8. Perused the record. Anxious consideration is given to the arguments advanced by both sides. Analysis and findings :- 9. The facts not in dispute are: (i) Land of the writ petitioners was acquired. 11 (ii) Within one year of such acquisition an application was made by the 2nd petitioner for appointment, thereafter by his daughter and subsequently by his son [1st petitioner]. (iii) The application of the 2nd petitioner was not considered contending that he was not qualified. However, in continuation of the same the application of the 1st petitioner was submitted. (iv) There is no dispute about the land loser status of the 2nd petitioner and relationship of the 1st petitioner with the 2nd petitioner consequent entitlement of the 1st petitioner for employment. Objections and Answers:- 10. Objection No.1: No award was passed. Answer:- [i] There is specific information furnished that award No.12/1992- 93 dated 30.03.1993 passed by RDO/Land Acquisition Officer, dated 06.11.1993. It is evident from the correspondence of the Department that the 2nd petitioner is shown as land loser and the 1st petitioner is the son of the 2nd petitioner. [iii] As per G.OMs. No.98, the son, daughter, spouse of the land loser or the land loser himself are eligible for appointment. 12 In view of the above, this objection found not tenable. 11. Objection No.2: The 2nd petitioner opted for some employment, and his employment status can be considered as the 1st petitioner is having an earning member in the family. Answer:- [i] It is unfortunate and unfair that a mighty state is taking such a defence for not considering the request of land loser, that too at a belated stage. Expecting a land loser to wait for the mercy of the State with a begging bowl, starving for decades without opting for any alternative for survival of self and the family reflects the pale nature of the defence/objection. The 2nd petitioner opted for employment as a casual conductor in APSRTC. What is the income? How many members are there in the family? What shall be the criteria of for determining whether there is an earning member in the family sufficient to deny employment to a person legitimately entitled are all the relevant considerations. While examining such aspects, an empathic approach is necessary. [ii] It is also relevant to note that the providing employment to an eligible family member of the land loser, in terms of the acquisition of land, shall be treated as a part of the promised compensation. The State, making a promise assuring some kind of compensation in the form of monetary benefits, employment or otherwise and going back from such promise made to citizens after the purpose of land acquisition served and 13 taking all sorts of objections, twisting the arms of land-loser, would amount to betraying the trust. Such kind of exercise, effort etc., in raising untenable defences by the executives of the State, shocks the conscience when such defences are subjected to judicial review. 12. Objection No.3: The first petitioner did not possess qualification as on the earlier DSC notifications. [i] Even as per the contention of the appellant, the first petitioner acquired ITI qualification by the year 2014. The 3rd DSC was held in 18.06.2019. The objection that ITI qualification was not possessed by the first petitioner as on 01.10.2011 is untenable since by such date only the candidature of the 2nd petitioner was under consideration. By the time the candidature of the 1st petitioner came into consideration viz., 2019 i.e., 3rd DSC meeting, he possessed the qualification required. Therefore, the objections contra are liable to be rejected. [ii] All other grounds urged and objections raised are found baseless and untenable when the same are examined in the light of the facto matrix of the present case. Jurisprudence relating to the compassionate appointment:- 13. Compassionate appointment in respect of deserving member of a family of an employee died in harness may be a Policy of a State as a Social security measure but, providing employment to the land loser or his 14 family member is a promise. Policy may have reasonable parameters but promise shall be strictly performed as assured, particularly when the parties for the promise are in unequal bargaining positions. Promise and Policy cannot be viewed with same lens. 14. The employment promised to a land loser, shall be weighed with greater sanctity and certainty than that of a compassionate appointment designed by State to a member of the family of an employee died in harness. On noting certain displeasures in implementation of land acquisition Schemes, particularly providing compensation viz., monetary or otherwise like providing employment during the last Century made the welfare State to travel towards Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short Land Acquisition Act, 2013 or RFCTLARR Act] which provides mandate for compensation, resettlement, and rehabilitation etc.,. with all rigor. 15. We are conscious of the fact that the present case is not falling under RFCTLARR Act 2013. But the legitimate expectation of a land loser shall be counted from the angle of such person, who was put under no option than to surrender the land. In such a situation, the State shall be considered as a dominating position and the land losers in a weak position. Therefore, the extent of trust expected from the State is like that of a parent towards a child, and if a parent disowns the promise and pushes the child to 15 all sorts of arm twisting tests, such action of the State cannot be appreciated. PRECEDENTIAL GUIDANCE:- 16. [i] This Court, in a case between State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary and Others and Rajola Jagannadha Reddy and Others1, vide W.A.No.356 of 2023 has observed, vide para 15, as follows:- “15. Before parting with this order, we intend to place the following observations on record: (i) The Governments itself framing the policies for providing jobs to the displaced persons whose lands were acquired for various public purposes, to ventilate the grievances and the hardships being faced by them with a laudable intention by making certain promises to those displaced persons. Then, it is the duty and responsibility of the State Authorities to fulfill the promises made in such policies without raising any technicalities or on flimsy grounds. What the State authorities have to consider is (1) whether the applicant is really displaced person or dependant of the displaced family or not? (2) Whether the candidate is eligible and suitable as per the respective schemes? Besides this, it is the duty and responsibility of the State Authorities to fulfill all promises made to the displaced persons within time frame to provide immediate rehabilitation to them to overcome from the hardships they have to face immediately after displacement from their lands. (ii) In our society, no one can forget the attachment of people with their lands. Nobody, normally, will be ready to lose their lands, 1 2025 SCC Online AP 3884 16 as they love it like their mother. But, when such lands are required for public purposes, though the owners of the lands are not agreeing to give their lands, Government is acquiring the lands as per Land Acquisition Act and the political executive is making several promises, like to provide employment to one member in the displaced persons family, as they are deprived of livelihood. If such promises are not fulfilled within reasonable time by raising technicalities and on flimsy grounds, the people loose trust on the State Executive. It makes them painful and then, it may leads to unrest. As such, State has to avoid such situations by implementing the rehabilitation schemes properly and promptly.” [ii] In a case Md. Yasin v. Bihar State Electricity Board2 a Division Bench of Hon’ble High Court of Patna (Rancthi Bench) held as follows:- “5. The question as to whether the persons whose lands have been acquired would be provided with employment or not is a matter policy decision of the State. It is unfortunate that despite the fact that the lands have a acquired as far back as in the year 1960, question of providing employment to the displaced persons have not attained finality, noticed hereinbefore, the respondents had granted employment to 298 persons as far hack as in the year 1977. The petitioners, on other hand, contend that they are not guilty of any delay or latches on their part, as they all along been pursuing the matter with Board. 6. This court in exercise of its jurisdiction or Article 226 of the Constitution of India not embark upon determination of disputed question of fact. Further, after lapse of 33 years of acquisition, this Court cannot issue a writ of or in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent 2 1993 SCC OnLine Pat 271 : (1994) 1 PLJR 65 17 Board to appoint all the persons irrespective of the fact as to whether there are vacancies and whether the persons applying are now eligible for appointment or not. However, the conduct of the respondent Board is evidently not fair in so far as it appears to have been taking inconsistent stand from time to time. It is not the case of the respondent that it had rejected the recommendation of the Deputy Commissioner in respect of providing employment to 114 persons. As a matter of fact, the contention of the respondents that after inquiry a list of 220 jamabandi raiyats has been prepared, which includes the names of some of the petitioners, but that the names of such persons have not been verified from the Register 2 maintained in the office of the circle officer.” [iii] A Coordinate Division Bench of this Court in K.Lakshmi Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh3, vide W.P.No.12681 of 2023 dated 12.08.2025 has considered the applicability of the G.O.Ms. No.98 dated 15.04.1986 and extended the benefit thereof in a similar situation, considering the circumstances where the name of the applicant was approved by the District Selection Committee and the appointment was awaited. Conclusion and Result:- 17. Upon considering the factual matrix and also the observations in the minutes of the District Selection Committee, dated 01.07.2019 and also the discussions made above, this Court finds that there are no valid grounds to interfere with the impugned orders dated 12.10.2023 passed by the learned 3 2025 Supreme (Online) (AP) 14145 18 Single Judge of this Court in W.P. No.33805 of 2022. Consequently, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 18. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND __________________________________ JUSTICE A.HARI HARANADHA SARMA Dated: 25.09.2026 Pnr Whether the order is:- Speaking Yes/No Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No Non-reportable Yes/No Note:- L.R. copy be marked. B/o. Pnr 19 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND & THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA WRIT APPEAL No.1206 of 2023 Dt. 25 -09-2026 Pnr