IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 9554 of 2009 Between: 1 B. Ramachandra Reddy, S/o. Subba Reddy, R/o. Kaluvoyee Village and mandal, Nellore District. 2 N. Chinnapu Reddy, S/o. Penchalaiah, Podlalapur Village and Mandal, Nellore District. 3 M. Mallam Kondaiah, S/o. Pedda Subbanna, Kulluru Village, Kaluvoyee Mandal, Nellore District. 4 M. Ramana Reddy, S/o. Venkata Reddy, Kulluru Village, Kaluvoyee Mandal, Nellore District. 5 M. Ramanamma, D/o.M.V. Subbaiah, Kulluru Village, Kaluvoyee Mandal, Nellore District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Irrigation & CAD Department, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Engineer-In-chief, Telugu Ganga Project, Srikalahasti, Chittoor District. 3 The District Collector/Chairman, Selection Committee, Kadapa District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a Writ, Order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not considering and appointing the petitioners in any suitable post reserved for displaced persons under G.OMs.NO. 98, dated 15-4-1996 on the ground that they were minors on the date of passing of the award as arbitrary and illegal and against the judgment of this Hon'ble Court in WPNo. 31480/1998 dated 22-06-2005 and violative of their fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to include the petitioners names in the list of displaced persons category and appoint them in any suitable post and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.SATYAM REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR IRRIGATION & COMM AREA DEV. The Court made the following : PSR, J. W.P.No. 9554 of 2009 Judgment This writ petition is filed by the petitioners for appointment under the displaced persons category. 2. The relevant facts are as follows: The petitioners’ lands situated in Pattapurai, Vengalayapalli and Eppiralla villages of Gopavaram Mandal, Kadapa District were acquired for the purpose of Somasila Project. The Awards were passed by the Land Acquisition Officer vide Award No.24 of 1979 dated:13.03.1980 and No.15 of 1979- 80 dated:20.12.1980. The Government have also issued G.O.Ms.No.98 dated: 15.4.1996 directing that 50% of the vacancies that arise in the projects should be reserved for the displaced persons, who have lost their lands and houses in the project. The Government have also issued another G.O.Ms.No.44, I & CAD Department dated: 31.3.1999 directing that the qualifying age of the displaced persons for employment should be reckoned with reference to the date of passing of award or date of taking possession of the land or date of actual displacement or date of appointment whichever is beneficial to the displaced persons. 3. As per the above Governmental order, the petitioners are entitled for appointment. Further the names of the petitioners were included in the list for appointments to be made in the displaced persons category; but their names were deleted on the ground that they were over-aged. 4. It is the further case of the petitioners that in A. Guruswamy v. The Secretary, Government of A.P.[1] this court held that the displaced persons should be considered for appointment without insisting upon the factum of minimum age as on the date of passing of the award or over age as on the date of consideration of their cases for employment. The petitioners in that writ petition were appointment in pursuance of the above orders of this court; but the same benefit was not extended to these petitioners, as they did not file the writ petition earlier. The petitioners ultimately pray that their cases may be considered for recruitment under the displaced persons quota. 5. A detailed counter is filed by the Government referring to several things. According to the counter, some displaced persons of Somasila project have approached the A.P. Administrative Tribunal and filed certain O.As., and the learned Tribunal directed the government to file a comprehensive affidavit covering the matter in question and spelling out the policy of the government about the employment of the displaced persons and accordingly a counter was filed by the Government by issuing an amendment to paragraph-3 of G.O.Ms.No. 44 dated:31.3.1999, vide G.O.Ms.No.247 dated: 29.12.2008. It is not disputed in the counter that the petitioners are not covered under the category of displaced persons . On the other hand it is stated that names of all the petitioners were included in the tentative seniority list; but their cases were not considered as they were over aged etc. 6. Now, the main contention of the government is that initially the petitioners were minors and now they are over aged; as such their cases could not be considered for appointment. 7. It is seen that in the order made in W.P.No. 31480 of 1998, this court observed that “In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the merits, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioners for being appointed to any suitable post as per the scheme laid down by the Government in the existing or future vacancies without insisting upon as to the factum of minimum age as on the date of passing of the Award or over aged as on the date of consideraion of their cases for employment under the scheme.” 8. In view of the above, the respondents are directed to consider the cases of the petitioners for appointment as per the scheme laid down by the Government either in the existing or future vacancies without taking into consideration the fact as to whether they were minors on the date of Award or over aged at the relevant period i.e., passing of the Award or at the time when their cases were considered for appointment. 9. With the directions, as above, the writ petition is disposed of. In the circumstances, the parties are directed to bear their own costs. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. October 09, 2009. *BVS [1] WP.No.31480 of 1998 dated:22.6.2005