IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 262 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 19/09/2007 in WP NO : 25571 OF 1998 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 The Member Secretary Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board Vidyuth Soudha, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. 2 The Superintending Engineer A.P.State Electricity Board Cuddapah District Cuddapah. 3 The Executive Engineer, A.P.State Electricity Board. Kadapa Division, Kadapah. 4 The Executive Engineer A.P.State Electricity Board Cuddapah Division Cuddapah ..... APPELLANT(S) AND 1 Ganjikunta Ravi Varma, S/o.G.Subbarayudu, R/o.Veparala Village & Post Mylavaram Mandal, Cuddapah District. 2 The Principal Secretary Government of Andhra Pradesh General Administration Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MR.K.CHIDAMBARAM(SC FOR AP GENCO) Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR GENERAL ADMINISTRATION The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: (Per Anil R. Dave, CJ) Admit. Looking to the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, at the request of the learned Advocates, the appeal has been finally heard today. The facts, which give rise to the present litigation in nutshell are as under: The original petitioner is a person whose land had been acquired for the purpose of setting up Rayalaseema Thermal Power Project. The acquisition proceedings are over. According to the petitioner, there was a policy of the acquiring body to provide employment to one of the members of the displaced family on certain conditions. The said conditions are incorporated in G.O.Ms.No. 98, Irrigation (Projects Wing) Department, dated 15-4-1986. As nobody was given appointment from the family of the original petitioner, the petition had been filed. The said petition has been allowed. The learned Single Judge has given a direction to the original respondents that the original petitioner should be appointed to a suitable post in the respondent-Board as per the scheme evolved for the benefit of the land ousters under Rayalaseem Thermal Power Project. The aforestated order passed in W.P.No.25571 of 1998, dated 19-9-2007 has been challenged in this appeal. The Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board, whose officers were respondents in the petition, is no more in existence. Now, the function with regard to generation of electricity has been taken over by APGENCO. As APGENCO was not a party in the writ petition, original writ petitioner had filed an application for impleadment being WAMP No. 1263 of 2008. The said application has been granted and APGENCo has now been added as respondent No.3 in the writ appeal. Learned Advocate Sri Chidambaram appearing for APGENCO has submitted that the APGENCO was not a respondent in the petition. It has been submitted by him that the case of the original petitioner had been duly considered as per the policy laid down in G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 15-4- 1986 and a final decision was taken not to provide job to the original petitioner and the said fact had been duly conveyed to the original petitioner under letter dated 22-12-1998. It has been, therefore, submitted that the appeal be allowed, as the aforestated order has neither been challenged nor was placed before the learned Single Judge. On the other hand, learned Advocate appearing for the original petitioner has submitted that the abovestated letter dated 22-12-1998 was never communicated to the original petitioner. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the letter dated 22-12-1998, whereby decision was taken not to give appointment to the original petitioner was never placed before the learned Single Judge as the concerned respondent, namely, the APGENCO was not a respondent in the writ petition. In the aforestated circumstances, in our opinion, direction could not have been given to an authority which was not a party before the learned Single Judge with regard to providing employment in pursuance of G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 15-4-1986. For the aforestated reasons, we quash and set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No. 25571 of 1998. Needless to say that it would be open to the 1st respondent-original petitioner to challenge the validity of the decision taken by the 3rd respondent- APGENCO (formerly the APSEB) with regard to not giving appointment to the 1st respondent-original petitioner. The appeal stands disposed of as allowed with no order as to costs. ______________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ 27th June, 2008. __________________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J GRR