IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI

HON'BLE PIR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUPIAR PIISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

WRIT APPEAL No.698 of 2021

(Through physfcaf mode)

The Chief Engineer, N.T.R.T.G.P. Project, Thirupathi, Chittoor District and two
others.

Versus

...Appellants/Respondents

T. Sreedhar, S/o. Ankaiah Naidu, Aged about 35 years, Unemployee, R/o.BadweI

Village, Kadapa
District.

Counsel for the appellants

Counsel for the respondent

.. Respondent/Petitioner

Mr. Y. N. Vivekananda, learned Government Pleader attached to the office of the

learned Additional
Advocate General - II
Mr. A. Phani Bhushan

JUDGMENT {ORAL) Dt: 29.12.2021

State, aggrieved by the order, dated 22.1.2021, passed in W.P.No. 16635 of 2018,
preferred this
Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act.
2. The respondent/writ petitioner filed W.P.No.16635 of 2018 under Article 226 of
the Constitution
of India seeking the following relief:-
".....to issue a writ order or Order more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus
declaring the action of
the est and 2nd

respondents 7n 6eep7zzp f/ze /zroposa/s pezzz/7zip for 7zic/zzs/ozi name of the

petitioner along
with others in the J" phase list since 2OJ6 ev'en in receipt of reminders pursuant
to the Letter
mo.ceyNra.rcryrrryczysusoysryozsyzozz, u'» eo as.oz.Jazz of
the J" respondent, from the M respondent vide Memo No.6 'JO42/R&R-A2/2DJ
'-J,
dt.2Z.08.2DZ ' aitd Meana No.E98 '46//t&R-A2/2OJ2'-J, df:.29.OF.2DJ2' R/w
Memo
No.892E39/R&R-A2/2OJ2'-J, dt.04.J2.2DJ2' without enforcing the same is illegal
and unreasonable
and consequently direct the J” azzd 2"‘ respondents to include the names
of the
petitioner along with others in the J“ phase list and forward the proposals to
provide the beneI'it
of z?.0.Ms.No.98, dt.JE.04.J986 and pass such other order or orders as this Non”ble
Court may deem
I'tt and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

3. Case of the writ petitioner is that his land and the land of some other persons
fell within
Somasila Project and after their lands were submerged, he along with others became
displaced
persons. He applied for employment under the quota of displaced person in pursuance
of
G.0.Ms.No.98, Irrigation (PROJ. WING) Department, dated 15.4.1986. Thereafter,
Memos dated
21.08.2017, letters dated 05.07.2017, Memo dated 28.05.2017 and another Memo dated
04.12.2017 were
issued by
the Department and according to those Nlemos, the writ petitioner is
entitled to be put in a separate list along with other displaced persons, who are
entitled for
employment under G.0.Nls.No.98, dated 15.4.1986, and to be included in the first
phase seniority
list. The Memo dated 21.08.2017 is a final order passed on the subject but no
action is taken till
date. Therefore, he approached this Court seeking relief to direct the
implementation of the Memo, dated 21.08.2017.

4. Learned Government Pleader accepted issuance of memos but submitted that due
to inadvertence,
the memos were issued and if these memos are to be implemented, there is a
possibility of every
person to approach this Court and therefore, no mandamus can be issued in favour

of the writ petitioner before the learned single Judge and sought dismissal
of the writ petition.

5. Upon hearing of the argument of both the learned counsel, the learned single
Judge issued a
direction to implement the memos issued i.e., to include the name of the petitioner
after
separation from the second phase seniority list and to place him in the first phase
seniority list
at the appropriate place subject to fulfillment of all the eligibility conditions
by the petitioner
including the conditions laid down in G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 15.4.1986, while closing
the contempt
case.
6. It is an undisputed fact that on 10.01.2017, the Secretary to the Government
addressed a Nlemo
bearing No.437432 requesting the Chief Engineer to consider the representation
submitted by Mr. S.
Sambasiva Reddy and others and if it is found to be genuine, it was directed to be
placed before
the District Selection Committee to separate the names from the second phase
seniority list and to
include them in the first phase seniority list. Similarly, Plemo bearing
No.450476, dated
20.01.2017, and Memo bearing No.470442, dated 01.02.2017, were issued in respect of
other similarly
placed persons and a Memo bearing No.483365, dated 17.02.2017, was issued by
the Joint
Secretary based on the representation of one D.Nandan. Lastly, a Memo bearing
No.488344, dated
20.02.2017, was issued by the 3oint Secretary on the basis of the representation of
one Sri T.
Ramanaiah and others. The Joint Secretary directed the Chief Engineer to take
necessary action to
place the memo before the District Selection Committee to separate the names from
the second phase
seniority list. Similarly, Memo bearing No.514694, dated 13.03.2017, Nlemo bearing
No.598746,
dated 29.05.2017, and Memo dated 16.06.2017 were issued in respect of other
similarly placed
persons. The Memo, dated 21.08.2017, is the request of the Chief Engineer, dated

05.07.2017, basing on all these memos but the contention of the

appellants herein is that the memos were issued inadvertently. The memos were not
issued by a
subordinate service employee but they were issued by an officer in the cadre of
Secretary level in
the State, for implementation. In the case of others, it appears that the memos
were issued but in
the opinion of the writ petitioner, the memos were not implemented extending the
benefit of placing
him in the first phase seniority list by separating from the second phase seniority
list in terms
of
G.0.Ms.No.98, dated 15.4.1986. The cumulative efect of all the documents and
instructions that have
been issued/sought from time to time by officers of the rank of Secretary/3oint
Secretary to the
Government of Andhra Pradesh clearly show that they were seeking
permission to separate 1259 candidates. It is also important to note that the list
of 9751 approved
candidates as per the State was finalized on 18.06.2015 by the District Selection
Committee.
Despite the direction, no action was taken. The learned single Judge also observed
that in the
written submissions made during the course of the submissions, learned
counsel for the petitioner pointed out that when this Court cannot issue a
direction to rectify the
error or this Court cannot undertake such rectification, it is for the Department
to take
appropriate action to rectify
the errors but it is the only plea of the appellants that those memos were

inadvertently issued. Such plea is not substantiated by any material and when a
direction was
issued by the Secretary of the Government or the Joint Secretary of the Government,
they are
intended to be implemented and not to violate. Therefore, it is the duty of the
appellants to
implement those memos and place the writ petitioner at an appropriate place in a
separate list, separating from the second phase seniority list but the
learned counsel for the appellants contended that if such implementation

is allowed, everyone will approach this Court but this is not a ground to reject
the request of the
writ petitioner in the writ petition. Hence, we find no ground to interfere with
the order, dated
22.1.2021, passed in W.P.No.16635 of 2018 by the learned single Judge. However,
time for
implementation of the order is extended for a period of two (2) months
from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that this
judgment is limited
to the writ petitioner only.
7. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is disposed of. No costs. Pending
miscellaneous applications, if any, in this Writ Appeal shall stand closed.

PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, C3 M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J

AMD

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

WRIT APPEAL No.698 of 2021

(per Hon”ble I'm. Justice I'M.Satyanarayana Murthy}
Dt: 29.12.2021

AMD