IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 160 of 2003 And WRIT APPEAL NO : 731 of 2007 WRIT APPEAL NO : 160 of 2003 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated ______ in WP NO : 11128 OF 1992 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 D. Venkateswara Rao. S/o. Laxmaiah. 2 B. Biksham, S/o. Venkaiah, 3 R. Satyanarayana, S/o, Narsaiah, 4 G. Saideswar Rao, S/o. Janikayya, 5 B. Venkateswarlu, S/o. Veeraiah, 6 E. Rama Rao, S/o. Bhadraiah, 7 Samudrala Guravaiah, S/o. Veeraiah, 8 T.Chander Rao, S/o. Tirupataiah, 9 Vacha Pullamma, D/o. Rayapudi Seethamma, 10 I.V. Appa Rao, S/o. Sambaiah, 11 M. Ramakrishna, S/o. Sriramulu, (All are R/o. C/o. T. Chander Rao, Seetharamapatnam Village, Paloncha Mandal, Khammam District.) ..... APPELLANT(S) AND 1 The Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board , rep.by its Secretary, Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad. 2 The Chief Engineer, O &M KTPS, APGENCO, Paloncha . Khammam District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MR.G.V.SHIVAJI Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.K.CHIDAMBARAM(SC FOR AP GENCO) WRIT APPEAL NO : 731 of 2007 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 22/03/2002 in WP NO : 22306 OF 2000 on the file of the High Court.) Between: M. Sai Giridhar S/o M. Bhupala rao R/o West Ibrahimpatnam, Krishna district. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 the APGENCO repby Chief Engineer VTPS, IBrahimpatnam, Krishna District. 2 The APGENCO repby its Chairman& managing Director, Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:SMT.BOBBA VIJAYALAKSHMI Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.K.CHIDAMBARAM(SC FOR AP GENCO) The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 160 of 2003 And WRIT APPEAL NO : 731 of 2007 COMMON JUDGMENT (Per Sri Justice B Prakash Rao) Since the common questions are involved in these two appeals, they are taken up together for disposal by this common order. The appellants herein are land oustees, whose lands have been acquired by the respondent and they seek consideration of their cases for providing employment in the respondent organization, having regard to the scheme framed by the Government in G O Ms No. 98 dated 15.4.1986. The case of the appellant/writ petitioners was that most of the cases were not considered by the respondents in proper perspective and sought to be rejected on different grounds viz., since the parent’s case was not considered the children would not get any relief and that the claims are barred etc. The learned single Judge after taking into consideration the contentions urged on behalf of both sides and also placing reliance on the orders of this Court, did not find favour with the writ petitioners and dismissed the writ petition. Hence, the appeal. During the course of the arguments, learned counsel for the appellants pointed out that apart from the decisions referred to by the learned single Judge, there are several other cases where similar directions were given for consideration of cases and consequently employment was provided several eligible candidates. It is also stated that said orders were confirmed by the Apex Court. Therefore, the judgments referred to by the learned Single Judge would not have any conclusive effect on the question. In support, reliance was placed on the directions given by the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No. 14038 of 2004 arising out of the judgment of this Court dated 21.4.2003 in W A No. 342 of 2003 where similar such directions were upheld. It was observed therein that the selection committee necessarily has to process all the applications and it is only such eligible will be provided with the employment. Having regard to the aforesaid directions given by the Supreme Court, which almost are on similar circumstances, we are of the view that similar such exercise can be done by the respondents herein. It is pointed out that the selection committee was already constituted. In the circumstances, the order of the learned single judge is set aside and both the appeals are allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the applications including that of the appellants herein from proper perspective and all those applications should be processed by the selection committee and it has to prepare a selection list, after taking into consideration the eligibility criteria and consequently provide due employment. Subject to above, the appeals are allowed. No costs. B.PRAKASH RAO,J SANJAY KUMAR,J Date:10.8.2009 Tvk THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 160 of 2003 And WRIT APPEAL NO : 731 of 2007 Date: 10.8.2009