SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 3873

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
D RAMESH
BAYANABOINA VENKATA SUBBAIAH – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH – Respondent
WP 33135/2023



APHC010636302023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3208]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

THURSDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 33135/2023 Between:

1. B AYANABOINA VENKATA SUBBAIAH, S/O SUBBARAYUDU, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS UNEMPLOYEE, R/O SRIRAMNAGAR, H/O NANDYALAMPETEA, MYDUKURU MANDAL, Y.S.R. KADAPA DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER AND

1. T HE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPT., SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DIST.

2. T HE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER/ MEMBER CONVENOR OF DSC, NTR TELUGU GANGA PROJECT, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT.

3. T HE DISTRICT COLLECTOR/CHAIRMAN OF DSC, NTR TELUGU GANGA PROJECT, YSR KADAPA DIST.

...RESPONDENT(S):

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue a Writ Order or orders more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not considering the petitioner's claim for appointment under the displaced person's category in terms of G.O.Ms.No.98 dt.15-04-1986 in the vacancies earmarked for the dependents of the displaced families is wholly illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300(A)

of the Constitution of India and consequently declare that the Petitioner is entitled to be appointed in any suitable post under G.O.Ms.No.98, Irrigation (Project Wing) Department, dated 15.4.1986 without reference to the condition of one year limitation imposed in G.O.Ms.No.98 by taking into consideration the Government Memo No.480-LAR (2)/87-2, dated 24.8.1987 and the orders of A.P.A.T. made in O.A.No.7917/2003, dt.16- 07-2007 and Judgment of the Honourable High Court in W.P.No.2436 of 2011, dated 8-2-2011 which was confirmed by the Honourable Supreme Court in SLP.No.14305/2011 by Order, dt.04.07.2011 and also the common Judgment of the Honourable High Court of A.P. in W.P. (AT)

No.174 of 2021 and batch, dated 13.12.2022 and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment in any suitable post in terms of G.O.Ms.No.98, Irrigation (Project Wing) Department, dated 15.4.1986 by disposing his representation, dt. 02.11.2015 by taking into consideration the recent Judgment of the Honourable High Court of Andhra Pradesh rendered in W.P. (AT) Nos.174 of 2021 and batch and pass such other order or Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. K SRINIVASA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR SERVICES III (AP)

The Court made the following:

ORDER:

1. This Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of the respondents in not considering the petitioner’s claim for appointment under the displaced person’s category in terms of G.O.Ms.No.98 dated 15.04.1986 in the vacancies earmarked for the dependents of the displaced families is illegal and arbitrary and consequently to declare that the petitioner is entitled to be appointed in any suitable post under G.O.Ms.No.98, Irrigation (Project Wing) Department, dated 15.04.1986 without reference to the condition of one year limitation imposed in G.O.Ms.No.98 by taking into consideration the Government Memo No.480-LAR (2)/87-2, dated 24.08.1987 and the orders of A.P.A.T made in O.A.No.7917/2003, dt.16-07-2007 and Judgment of this Court in W.P.No.2436 of 2011, dated 08.02.2011 which was confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP.No.14305/2011 by order, dated 04.07.2011 and also the common Judgment of this Court in W.P.(AT) No.174 of 2021 and batch, dated 13.12.2022.

2. The petitioner’s contention is that the petitioner’s land was acquired by the respondents and an award was also passed on 07.10.1985 and compensation was paid. In fact, the petitioner has lodged a c

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top