Telangana High Court
Banja Rajkumar vs The Superintending Engineer And 3 ... on 28 May, 2025
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No. 14339 OF 2019
O R D E R:
This Writ Petition is filed challenging the speaking
order vide Memo dated 15.06.2016 and the action of
respondents in not considering the case of petitioner to the post
of Junior Assistant or any other suitable post under displaced
persons quota on the ground that he applied beyond the period
of limitation as prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 15.04.1986
read with Memo dated 24.08.1987.
2. Petitioner's case is that their house submerged in
SRSP Reservoir and they were displaced during 18.03.1978 vide
Award No. 17/1977-98. It is stated that Government issued
G.O.Ms.No. 98, dated 15.04.1986 and G.O.Ms.No. 68, dated
17.05.2014 to fill up 50% vacancies in Junior Assistant /
Typists and the cadres below arising in Major and Minor
Irrigation and power projects to be filled up by the displaced
persons.
Petitioner states that he submitted representation
to Respondents 1 and 2 on 30.09.2014 to provide appointment
in terms of G.O.Ms. No. 98, on which, the revenue officials made
correspondence with the 1st respondent who issued impugned
speaking order informing that Selection Committee reviewed
and rejected the case on the ground that the time limit set in
G.O.Ms. No. 98 and Memo dated 24.08.1987 expired long back.
Again, petitioner is stated to have made representation on
02.02.1997 to the 1st respondent not to insist for time limit as
per letter dated 23.05.2015 addressed by the 1st respondent
wherein he referred Supreme Court orders stating that
limitation will not apply for the awards passed before issuance
of G.O.Ms. No. 98, dated 15.04.1986. But, so far, no orders are
passed thereon.
3. The 1st respondent - Superintending Engineer filed
counter stating that house property of petitioner's father was
acquired for the purpose of construction of Sri Ramsagar Project
and compensation amount was also paid. While so, petitioner
filed the subject Writ Petition seeking a direction to
Respondents to consider their cases in any suitable post under
displaced persons quota. The 1st respondent had issued
speaking order dated 15.06.2016 stating that, petitioner is not
eligible to consider for appointment under displaced persons
quota, as the Government had already issued instructions vide
Memo dated 14.05.2010 that no new Application would be
received for employment from displaced persons, as the deadline
set in G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 15.04.1986 and Memo dated
24.08.1987 expired long back.
According to this respondent, as per G.O.Ms.No.98,
dated 15.04.1986, for securing employment under displaced
persons quota, Applications from eligible candidates shall be
made to the District Collector concerned within a period of one
year from the date of actual displacement of the family.
Preference shall be given with reference to the date of
displacement and to those applicants whose houses and land
are acquired. The District Collectors shall draw up a list of such
Applications and forward the same to the project authorities for
appointment. Further, Government in Memo dated 24.08.1987
clarified that 'period of one year' does not apply to such of the
persons/families who are displaced prior to issuance of the said
G.O. It is stated that Government constituted Selection
Committee vide G.O.Ms.No.266 dated 19.09.1994 read with
G.O.Ms.No.135, dated 17.11.2009 to select the candidates
among the Applications received for appointment subject to
other preferences/ conditions prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.98, with
the following officers.
i) District Collector concerned as Chairman
ii) Joint Collector of the District concerned as Member
iii) Superintending Engineer of the concerned project
as Member-Convenor
Further it is also stated that Government issued
instructions vide Memo dated 22.12.2005 which reads as
follows:
" In case of eligible displaced persons whose lands and
structures acquired under Irrigation Projects prior to the issue of
G.O.Ms.No.98 dated 15.4.1986 instructions were issued to the District
Collectors to forward the applications of the displaced persons to the
concerned authorities for appointment even though they have applied
for appointment after one year of their displacement vide Memo. No.480-
LAR(2)/87-2 dated 24.8.1987. Because, by that time, when the
G.O.Ms.No.98 came into force, the displaced persons might have
crossed the time bound period of one year to apply for appointment, and
not to go on receiving such applications by the District
Administrators/Project Administrator after elapsed period of decades",
Since the District Collectors are receiving
Applications without following cut-off date and sending the
same for approval even after lapse of 20 years, the Government
issued clarification in Memo dated 14.05.2010 to G.O.Ms.No.98
and Memo dated 24.08.1987. Further Government directed
that all the Engineers-in-Chief/Chief Engineers of Irrigation
Projects and the District Collectors to follow scrupulously the
instructions for employment of the displaced persons under
G.O.Ms.No.98 dated 15.04.1986.
This respondent stated that petitioner submitted
representation on 10.12.2013 in terms of G.O.Ms.No.98. after
lapse of 32 years five months from the date of displacement of
his father's properties.
It is stated that in similar circumstances, APAT
passed orders in O.A.No. 2080 of 2013 rejecting the case of
applicant therein on that ground that he made Application after
a gap of about 28 years and he is not eligible for consideration
as per G.O.Ms.No.98 dated 15.04.1986 read with the
clarifications given vide Memo dated 22.12.2005 and another
Memo dated 14.05.2010. The Tribunal observed that it is
settled law that the Courts/ Tribunal cannot interfere in the
Policy decision taken by the Government. It is brought to the
notice of this Court that in DHAMPUR SUGAR (KASHIPUR)
LTD. Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL 1, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court considered the case law on the policy decision and scope
of Judicial review and held as follows:
" In our judgment, it is well-settled that public
authorities must have liberty and freedom in framing policies. No doubt,
the discretion is not absolute, unqualified or unfettered or uncanalised
and judiciary has control over all executive actions. At the same time,
however, it is well established that courts are ill-equipped to deal with
these matters, decisions have to be taken by governmental authorities
keeping in view several factors, and it is not possible for courts to
consider competing claims and conflicting interests and to conclude
which may the balance tilts. There are no objectives, justifiable or
manageable standards to judge the issues nor can such questions be
decided on priority considerations"
(2007) 8 SCC 418
It is stated, the government has taken a conscious
decision not to accept the applications after a lapse of decades
and permitted the District Collectors and Project Authorities to
fix up cut-off date to receive applications from this category of
displaced persons and had given clarifications through Memo
dated 22.12.2005 and another Memo dated 14.05.2010. It is
thus clear that relaxation of cut-off date i.e. the period of
limitation of one year based on the date of displacement cannot
be stretched to accommodate the requests for providing jobs
even after lapse of decades from the date when G.O.Ms.No.98
and Memo dated 24.08.19878 were issued. The Tribunal in the
O.A. concluded that the applicant had applied for the job on
29.07.2003 i.e. after a gap of about 17 years and he is not
eligible for consideration as per G.O.Ms. No. 98, dated
15.04.1986 read with clarification Memos. Finally, it is stated
that this Court as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court, time and
again, held that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed
as a right after long lapse of time. Since in the present case,
petitioner sought appointment after 32 years 5 months of
acquiring house, on the ground of delay the Writ Petition is
liable to be dismissed.
4. Heard Sri P. Amarender, learned counsel for
petitioner as well as Ms. B. Annapurna, counsel representing
learned Government Pleader for Services-I.
5. From a perusal of the material on record, it is clear
that the 1st respondent issued speaking order dated 15.06.2016
stating that petitioner is not eligible to be considered for
appointment under displaced persons quota, as the Government
had already issued instructions vide Memo dated 14.05.2010
that no new Application would be received for employment from
displaced persons, as the deadline set in G.O.Ms.No.98, dated
15.04.1986 and Memo dated 24.08.1987 expired long back. As
per G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 15.04.1986, Applications shall be
made within one year from the date of actual displacement of
the family and preference was prescribed. Further, Government
in Memo dated 24.08.1987 clarified that 'period of one year'
does not apply to such of the persons/families who are
displaced prior to issuance of the said G.O. Thereafter,
Government issued instructions vide Memo dated 22.12.2005.6.
Since the District Collectors are receiving
Applications without following cut-off date and sending the
same for approval even after lapse of 20 years, the Government
further clarified in Memo dated 14.05.2010 that all the
Engineer-in-Chiefs/Chief Engineers of Irrigation Projects and
the District Collectors to follow scrupulously the instructions for
employment of the displaced persons under G.O.Ms.No.98 dated
15.04.1986. Admittedly, petitioner submitted Application /
representation on 10.12.2013 in terms of G.O.Ms.No.98. after
lapse of 32 years five months from the date of displacement.
Hence, his Application was rejected. It is brought to the notice of
this Court that in similar circumstances, the Tribunal passed
order in O.A. No. 2080 of 2013 rejecting the case of applicant
therein on that ground that he made Application after a gap of
about 28 years and he is not eligible for consideration as per
G.O.Ms.No.98 dated 15.04.1986 read with the clarifications
given vide Memo dated 22.12.2005 and another Memo dated
14.05.2010. The Tribunal observed that it is settled law that
the Courts/ Tribunal cannot interfere in the Policy decision
taken by the Government. It is also brought to the notice of this
Court that in Dhampur Sugar (kashipur) ltd. vs. State Of
Uttaranchal 2, the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the case
law on the policy decision and scope of Judicial review and held
as extracted supra.
6. Learned Government Pleader, in this regard,
brought to the notice of this Court the order dated 03.02.2025
in Writ Petition No. 36516 of 2024 wherein the Division Bench,
(2007) 8 SCC 418
after considering the settled principles of law, held that 'in view
of the judicial precedents touching the aspect of delay latches
referred to in the preceding paragraphs and upon seeing the
inordinate delay of more than 5 ½ years, coupled with the fact
the weak justification and explanation which is not plausible or
satisfactory in any manner forces this Bench to hold that the
instant Writ Petition suffers from delay laches and deserves to
be dismissed.'
7. In Writ Appeal Nos. 1660 of 2018 and 593 of 2016,
by order dated 13.12.2021, the Division Bench of this Court,
taking into consideration the judgment in Kulwant Singh Gill
v. State of Punjab (1991 Supp (1)( SCC 504), held that delay of
5 to 18 years was held to be inordinate in preferring a Writ
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The same analogy
applies in the case of petitioners who approached the
authorities nearly after 30 years of the order of displacement.
8. Learned counsel for petitioner places reliance on
the order dated 30.06.2010 in O.A. No. 10637 of 2009, wherein
the Tribunal directed the respondents to consider the case of
applicant for appointment in terms of G.O.Ms.No. 98,
irrespective of the limitation prescribed therein and pass
appropriate orders as per his eligibility and suitability. The
above order is confirmed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 2436
of 2011 dated 08.02.2011 and the matter was carried to the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No. 14305 of 2011 which
was dismissed, hence, the law is settled that displaced persons
are permitted to submit their applications irrespective of the
houses acquired during 1977-78 prior to issue of G.O. and the
speaking order is non-est in the eye of law and the same is liable
to be set aside.
9. However, this Court, in view of the legal position
placed by respondents on the ground of delay and laches, is not
inclined to take into consideration the submissions of learned
counsel for petitioner and the judgments relied on by him. The
Writ Petition, in the considered opinion of this Court, is liable to
be dismissed.
10. The Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed. No
costs.
11. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if
any shall stand closed.
-------- -----------------------------
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J
28th May 2025
ksld
