Date of reserved for orders : Date of pronouncement : Date of uploading : APHC010351752026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] MONDAY, THE 31st DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 18996/2026 Between: 1. SRI GADAMSETTY SATYANARAYANA, , S/O CHINNA NARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS RESIDENT OF DOOR NO. 121539, KOTA STREET, PRODDATUR TOWN, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. 2. GADAMSETTY KESAVA SAI RAKESH, S/O GADAMSETTY SATYNANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, RESIDENT OF DOOR NO. 121539, KOTA STREET, PRODDATUR TOWN, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.522237 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, , YSR KADAPA DISTRICT, CUM CHAIRMAN, SELECTION COMMITTEE, SPVB 2 RESERVOIR, B. MATTAM, KADAPA DISTRICT.516001 3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, NTR TELUGU GANGA PROJECT, KADAPA DISTRICT.516001 4. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, NTR TELUGU GANGA PROJECT, KADAPA DISTRICT 516001 ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue an order or writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus challenging the action of the respondent No.4 in issuing the impugned speaking order vide No. SE/NTR-TGPC/KDP/AB/EC- 5/181 M, dated 0710412026, whereby the claim of the petitioners has been mechanically rejected by reiterating the very same grounds which have already been rejected in several similar cases, without properly considering the petitioners representations in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.98, Irrigation (Project Wing) Department, dated 15.04.1986, as specifically directed by this Hon'ble Court by order dated 29-12-2025 in W.P.No.36254 of 2025, as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, Violative of Principles of Natural Justice and violative of constitutional rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 16, 19(1), 21, and second proviso of 31A, and consequently to set aside the same and consider the case of employment of the second petitioner in the place of First Petitioner in any Major and Medium irrigation and Power Projects under the displaced persons quota as per G.O.Ms No. 98 dated 15-04-1986, with all consequential benefits, and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to suspend the operation of the impugned Speaking Order No. SE/NTR- 3 TGPC/KDP/AB/EC-51181 M, dated 0710412026, issued by the 4t" Respondent, and consequently direct the Respondents to keep one post of Office Subordinate vacant, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. T DIWAKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following: Whether the order is : Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No 4 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY W.P.No.18996 of 2026 O R DE R: This Writ Petition is filed challenging the action of Respondent No.4 in issuing the impugned speaking order dated 07.04.2026 without considering the representations of the Petitioners in terms of G.O.Ms.No.98 Irrigation (PW) Department, dated 15.04.1986 as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The State Government had acquired the joint family property of the Petitioners for foreshore submersion of the SPVB Reservoir and an Award No.41/74, dated 10.11.1984 was passed. The State Government had issued G.O.Ms.No.98 Irrigation (PW) Department, on 15.04.1986 for providing employment to the persons whose land was acquired for the purpose of irrigation projects. 3. The Petitioner No.1 being the son of the person whose land was acquired applied for consideration of his case for employment under the G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 15.04.1986. After several years, on 19.03.2020, the Government issued appointment order to the Petitioner No.1 as ‘Office Subordinate’, but due to his ill-health and having crossed the age of 50 years, 5 the Petitioner No.1 was unable to take up the post. Thereafter, the Petitioner No.1 submitted several representations dated 16.11.2017, 16.12.2019, 06.01.2020 and 13.10.2025 to the Respondent Authorities seeking employment to his son G.Kesava Sai Rakesh (Petitioner No.2), who is dependent upon the Petitioner No.1. As there was no action on the representations of the Petitioners, Petitioners filed W.P.No.36254 of 2025 and this Court disposed of the same by order dated 29.12.2025 directing the Respondents to consider the case of the Petitioners in terms of G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 15.04.1986. 3. Pursuant to the order of this Court, Respondent No.4 issued speaking order vide No.SE/NTR-TGPC/KDP/AB/EC- 5/181 M, dated 07.04.2026 rejecting the request of the Petitioners holding that being the grandson of the original awardee, Petitioner No.2 is not entitled for appointment under the displaced persons quota. Respondent No.4 further stated that Petitioner No.1 had not joined the post when appointment orders were issued and rejected the request for substitution. Hence, this writ petition. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader would submit that the scheme of G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 15.04.1986 does not 6 contemplate grandson to be included within the meaning of displaced persons and the impugned orders need not be interfered. 5. Heard Sri T.Diwakar Reddy, learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-II. 6. The purpose of G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 15.04.1986 is to provide employment to the displaced members of the family. The Paragraph 4(ii) and (iii) reads as under: 4 (ii) The candidates eligible for appointment under this scheme shall be the displaced persons of his/her son, daughter or spouse/there being no other earning member in the family. (iii) Applications for appointment from the eligible candidate 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 these applicants whose houses and lands are acquired against those whose land or house only is acquired. The District Collector shall draw up a list of such application and forward the same to the District Authorities for appointment. 7. The idea is to provide employment to the displaced family and the failure of the Respondents to provide employment as promised in the G.O at the earliest point of time has become the 7 cause to deny the benefit to Petitioner No.2. The usage of the words displaced person/son/daughter or spouse in paragraph 4(ii) cannot be termed to be exhaustive and the emphasis should be on displaced family referred in paragraph 4(iii). 8. In W.P.No.586 of 2022, a coordinate bench of this Court had rejected a similar contention of the Respondents as that would be giving narrow interpretation of the purpose of the G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 15.04.1986. The relevant portion of the order is extracted below; “As such the impugned order dated 06.11.2020 of the respondent No.4 rejecting the request of the petitioners on the ground that the petitioner No.2 happens to be the grand son of Smt.Chandragiri Venkatamma/the mother of the petitioner No.1 in whose name the compensation amount was paid, is contrary to the G.O.Ms.No.98, I&CAD (PW) dated 15.04.1986 and amounts to giving a narrow interpretation for the definition of displaced persons, that too when the petitioner No.1 was recognised himself as a displaced person, the question of rejecting his request to extend the benefit of the above said GO does not arise.” 8. The same was confirmed in W.A.No.667 of 2022. Another coordinate bench of this Court followed the same in W.P.27500 of 2023. In W.P.No.2919 of 2006, a similar issue pertaining to 8 acquisition of land for railways and the railway boards letter providing employment fell for consideration before the Division Bench. The Division Bench held that the grandchildren come within the scope of displaced persons and are entitled to be considered for appointment. 9. Another Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.356 of 2023 echoed a similar opinion. The paragraph 15.1 is extracted below; “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 9 hardships they have to face immediately after displacement from their lands.” 10. For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ petition is allowed with following directions; (i) The impugned order dated 07.04.2026 is set aside. (ii) The Respondents are directed to consider the case of Petitioner No.2 in place of Petitioner No.1 for employment under G.O.Ms.No.98 dated 15.04.1986 as expeditiously as possible. (iii) No order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand dismissed. ___________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 31.08.2026 KLP