The court affirmed that displaced persons are entitled to employment under government schemes, emphasizing the principle of parity in employment opportunities for similarly situated individuals.

ORDER :

The petitioners in the present writ petition challenge the order passed by the 3^rd respondent vide No:SE/NTR.TGP Circle/KdP/EC5/641 M, dated 08.08.2019, rejecting their request for providing employment in terms of G.O.Ms.No.98, Irrigation (PROJ.WING) Department, dated 15.04.1986 and G.O.Ms.No.45, Irrigation & C.A.D. (PW:R&R-A2) Department, dated 04.07.2012, as arbitrary and illegal.

2. (a) Petitioners are displaced persons affected by Sri Pothuluri Veera Brahmendra Reservoir. Petitioners’ lands were acquired for the aforesaid project and were paid compensation in terms of Award No.4/1987, dated 09.03.1987, Award No.28/1987, dated 31.07.1987 and Award No.12/1988, dated 25.09.1988. The acquisition of lands was done while they were in the hands of the petitioners' fathers.

(b) The Government in order to provide rehabilitation as a welfare measure to the displaced persons whose lands and houses are also acquired for the major and medium irrigation projects, issued G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 15.04.1986, formulating a scheme providing that persons who are displaced be accommodated with jobs in the projects so undertaken. Initially, fathers of the petitioners claimed to have submitted applications in terms of the aforesaid G.O. to include their names in the list of candidates eligible for appointments. Special Deputy Collector, Telugu Ganga Project, was delegated to identify the eligible unemployed displaced persons whose lands were acquired under the project at the instance of the Special Collector’s proceedings dated 08.01.1985, accordingly, the Special Deputy Collector has got list prepared identifying the eligible unemployed persons belonging to Obularajupalli and Gangapatnam Villages, a list enclosed along with letter dated 22.01.1986 included names of petitioners fathers. Though the list was prepared long back, petitioners' fathers were not considered for providing jobs. Meanwhile, due to paucity of time as the original applicants have aged and still were awaiting to be accommodated by Government and the Government has received various representations to provide employment to sons/daughters of such original applicants, G.O.Ms.No.45, dated 04.07.2012, was issued clarifying that the applications received within the time limit as per G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 15.04.1986, but the applicants not being provided employment due to administrative reasons shall be considered for employment as per seniority subject to fulfilling of other eligibility criteria prescribed for the category of job.

(c) The petitioners thereafter submitted applications for substitution of their names in the place of their fathers as they have already aged. As the applications were not being considered, petitioners filed O.A. No.7206/2015 and O.A. No.6946/2015 before the Administrative Tribunal, which came to be disposed of by orders dated 22.09.2017 and 17.03.2018 respectively directing the respondents to consider the cases of said applicants and to pass appropriate orders. In pursuance to the said orders, the 3^rd respondent by impugned order dated 08.08.2019 rejected the claim of petitioners holding that they are not eligible for consideration in terms of G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 15.04.1986. Assailing the same, the present writ petition is filed.

3. Respondents 1 to 3 filed counter admitting that petitioners' lands and houses were acquired for the project and they were paid compensation under the awards mentioned above. Insofar as the claim of petitioners fathers that they made applications for employment, it is stated that the competent authority for receiving such applications being District Selection Committee headed by District Collector, Kadapa, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.266, Irrigation and CAD (PW) Department, dated 19.09.1994, the list prepared by Special Deputy Collector (LA) as furnished by petitioners has no sanctity and cannot be taken into consideration. The list prepared by District Collector does not contain the names of fathers of petitioners being original awarde