HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.12093 of 2010 ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled seeking to issue Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing the impugned list of 41 ineligible applications, dated 10-01-2010 and further list of 170 eligible applications for the purpose of appointment against the posts reserved for displaced persons under G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 15-04-1986 contrary to the approved list of 210 eligible displaced persons vide Memo No.9364/LA.IV.R&R.II/2009-6, dated 31-10-2009 by the 1st respondent Government as totally illegal and consequently set aside the same by further directing the respondents 2 to 4 to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment in terms of Government approved list of displaced persons. 2. It is stated in the affidavit, filed in support of the writ petition, that the petitioner is a resident of Jangamrajupalli, B’Matam Mandal, Kadapa District. The Government of Andhra Pradesh acquired the lands for the purpose of construction of Telugu Ganga Project including the lands of the family of the petitioner and passed awards and possession of lands were taken and they were displaced from the village during the year 2005. Petitioner studied up to 7th and belongs to B.C.(D) category. He ﬁled an application for consideration of his case for appointment to any post as per G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 15-04-1986 against the vacancies reserved for displaced persons. The District Collector prepared list of eligible displaced persons and he was placed at Sl.No.21 out of 210 eligible persons and forwarded the same to the Chief Engineer who in turn forwarded the same to 1st respondent for approval in terms of G.O.Ms.Nos.44 and 247, dated 29-12-2008. The 1st respondent approved the list of displaced persons for providing employment vide memo, dated 31-10- 2009. As he was expecting appointment, 3rd respondent published the impugned list of 41 candidates on 10-01-2010 stating that they are ineligible for the reasons mentioned in column No.13 and in his case which is at Sl.No.21 of the said list, it is mentioned that “the RDO, Rajampet reported that his brother is working as A.E. in T.G.P. Hence ineligible.” He submitted objections stating that there was family partition of their properties before acquisition and separate awards against his brother and father were passed treating as separate families and on that ground he cannot be denied of his right to employment under displacement quota. The view taken by the 3rd respondent that his brother who was separated from his family before passing award is to be treated as earning member in the family is totally contrary to the scheme of G.O.Ms.No.98 providing provision for employment to one of each displaced family. Respondents 2 and 3 are making appointments not on the basis of the approved list of 1st respondent, but as per the eligible list of 170 people prepared by the 3rd respondent. Hence, the writ petition. 3. The 3rd respondent ﬁled counter-aﬃdavit stating that vacancies have to be ﬁlled up as per G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 15-04-1986, that as per G.O.Ms.No.266, dated 19- 09-2004, Government have constituted selection committee and the said committee will scrutinize the applications of displaced persons with regard to eligibility for appointment and prepare the list of eligible displaced persons, that the actual date of displacement is 19-09-2005 and the committee based on the reports received from RDO, Rajampet, the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition TGP, Kadapa and the Executive Engineer, NTR Telugu Ganga Project Division, Badvel, prepared a list of 210 eligible displaced persons and the petitioner was placed at Sl.No.21 in the list. The above list along with vacancy position of 37 posts was submitted to Government and the Government vide Memo, dated 31-10-2009 approved the list and accorded permission for appointing 37 eligible displaced persons. Basing on the enquiry, name of the petitioner was included in the list of eligible displaced persons. After enquiry and submission of list of eligible displaced persons, complaints were received from public that majority of displaced person found eligible in the enquiry have suppressed certain facts of their ineligibility and as such, they are to be deleted from the list of displaced persons and keeping in view of the same, re-enquiry was ordered. During enquiry, it is reveled that brother of the petitioner is TGP employee and receiving salary from the Government and therefore, the name of the petitioner was deleted from the list. Therefore, the 3rd respondent prays to dismiss the writ petition. 4. The Superintendent Engineer, Telugu Ganga Project, Kadapa (3rd respondent) prepared list of eligible displaced persons for appointment as per G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 15-04-1986 r/w G.O.Ms.Nos.44 and 247, dated 29-12-2008. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was displaced person under Telugu Ganga Project as his land was acquired by the Government for the purpose of construction of Telugu Ganga Project. In terms of Government Orders, the petitioner is entitled to appointment for any suitable post. The name of the petitioner was originally included in the list of beneﬁciaries for the purpose of appointment, but later his name was deleted from the list on the ground that his brother was already appointed in Telugu Ganga Project. It is not in dispute that the brother of the petitioner was separated from the family before acquisition of land by the Government and separate awards have also been passed in respect of families of petitioner and his brother. Therefore, the case of giving appointment to one of the members of the family of the petitioner has to be considered afresh for the purpose of appointment to any suitable post. If the brother of the petitioner is to be included in the family of petitioner, certainly petitioner is not eligible for appointment to any suitable post. As the Award in respect of lands of brother of petitioner is separate and diﬀerent, there is no impediment in considering the case of the petitioner. 5. Therefore, the Writ Petition is allowed directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in giving appointment in terms of G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 15-04-1986 read with G.O.Ms.No.247, dated 29-12-2008. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ K.C.BHANU, J 25th November 2011 DR