ORDER :

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-III appearing for the respondents.

2. In a nut shell, the case of the petitioner is that he and his family members were residing at K. Basavapuram village, B. Mattam Mandal, Kadapa District. The Government had acquired their house and agricultural lands in the year 1984-1985 for the purpose of construction of Telugu Ganga Project and awards were passed in favour of the father of the petitioner on 06.11.1984. With a view to provide employment to the displaced persons or their dependents under the major and medium irrigation projects, the Government had promulgated G.O.Ms. No. 98, Irrigation (Proj. Wing) Department, dated 15.04.1986 and issued orders. As per the scheme envisaged in the said G.O. the brother of the petitioner, namely, Thupakula Venkata Subbaiah, applied for consideration of his case for appointment against the vacancies reserved for the displaced persons. After due enquiry, the District Selection Committee prepared an integrated seniority list of 210 eligible displaced persons for employment under the Telugu Ganga Project. The Government vide memo dated 31.10.2009 approved the said list in which the brother of the petitioner was figured at S. No. 30. While so, the 3rd respondent published the list of 41 candidates including the name of the petitioner’s brother at S. No. 30 on 10.01.2010 stating that the candidate is working as an Attender in Guru Raghavendra Project, Emmiganuru:

(i) Subsequently, the petitioner submitted an application in the place of his brother for consideration of his case for appointment. After following due procedure enumerated in the relevant Government Orders, the 1st respondent vide Memo dated 28.11.2019 included the name of the petitioner at S. No. 10 in the list of displaced persons. Later, upon a complaint given by some third parties against the petitioner, the Superintending Engineer, Kadapa, ordered the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadapa, for re-enquiry, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadapa, submitted a report to the 4th respondent on 31.07.2020 stating that the petitioner is eligible for appointment under displaced persons quota. However, the 3rd respondent vide Memo dated 07.10.2020 rejected the application of the petitioner in compliance of the orders of the District Collector and the District Selection Committee, without assigning any valid reasons. Assailing the same, the present writ petition is filed.

3. A counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents stating that the case of the petitioner’s brother was not considered for appointment and his case was rejected based on the verification report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajampet, as the petitioner’s brother was working as an Attender in Sri Guru Raghavendra Project. Thereafter, the brother of the petitioner filed an affidavit requesting to include the name of the petitioner in the list. After due enquiry, the name of the petitioner was approved by the District Selection Committee on 08.08.2019 and the Government also accorded permission to include the name of the petitioner in the existing seniority list vide Memo dated 28.11.2019:

(i) In the meanwhile, basing on an oral complaint made by some third-parties that there are Government employees in the family of the petitioner, an re-enquiry was ordered and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadapa furnished a report dated 31.07.2020 stating that the petitioner’s father was working as Office Subordinate in the office of the Superintending Engineer, NTR TGP Circle, Kadapa. Pursuant thereto, an Office Note was circulated to the District Selection Committee for approval of ineligibility of the petitioner for inclusion of his name in the seniority list of displaced persons and the same was approved.

4. A reply affidavit is filed by the petitioner denying the averments made in the counter affidavit wherein it is stated that without considering the report of the Revenue Divisional