-
by Admin
05 December 2025 4:19 PM
“Rehabilitation is not charity – it is a constitutional commitment to those uprooted by development”, In a landmark ruling Andhra Pradesh High Court, speaking through a Division Bench of Justices Battu Devanand and A. Hari Haranadha Sarma, upheld the rights of displaced persons under the Kandaleru Reservoir Project to seek employment under the Displacement Quota, even beyond the one-year time limit prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 15.04.1986.
In doing so, the Court partly allowed Writ Appeal No.315 of 2024 and disposed of Writ Appeal No.1289 of 2023, affirming the right of the writ petitioner Sk. Mohd. Rafi to be included in the first seniority list and also restoring the validity of the second seniority list which had been erroneously set aside by a Single Judge earlier.
“Strict Time Limit Can’t Defeat the Purpose of Displacement Policy” — Court Reiterates Liberal Interpretation in Favour of Uprooted Families
The pivotal legal issue revolved around whether the writ petitioner, a son of a displaced person from Dachuru village, was barred from employment merely because his application under the displaced persons quota was filed ten years after displacement — in 2015, though the displacement occurred in 2005.
The State argued that the one-year deadline under clause (iii) of G.O.Ms.No.98 precluded the petitioner from seeking any relief. However, the High Court squarely rejected that technical ground, reaffirming its earlier precedent in State of A.P. v. Rajola Jagannadha Reddy, W.A. No.356 of 2023, and declared:
“The action of the State Authorities in rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner on the ground of time barred is untenable and unsustainable and liable to be dismissed.”
The Court held that the purpose of G.O.Ms.No.98 is rehabilitation, not bureaucratic exclusion, stating:
“The Government Order envisages compassionate appointment to displaced persons on account of loss of their livelihood and intends to compensate their source of living.”
The Bench also highlighted that Memo No.480-LAR(2)/87-2 dated 24.08.1987 relaxed the one-year condition for all displaced families, emphasizing a liberal and purposive interpretation of the rehabilitation scheme. The State’s reliance on later internal memos to override the foundational G.O. was rejected outright:
“Government Memos issued later cannot override the object and spirit of G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 15.04.1986.”
Accordingly, the Court directed that the writ petitioner be included in the first seniority list, since his village Dachuru was one of the earliest submerged and displaced locations under the project.
“Setting Aside the Second Seniority List Without Hearing 106 Affected Candidates is Illegal” — Principles of Natural Justice Violated
A major procedural lapse by the learned Single Judge of the High Court was also addressed with sharp judicial clarity. In W.P. (AT) No. 47 of 2021, the learned Single Judge had set aside the entire second seniority list (approved by the government in Memo dated 26.12.2014) while considering the writ petitioner’s grievance, without impleading any of the 106 affected persons who stood to lose employment.
Calling it a “clear violation of principles of natural justice”, the Division Bench declared:
“Setting aside the second seniority list without affording any opportunity to the affected parties is unsustainable under law.”
The beneficiaries of the second list, who were the appellants in W.A. No. 315 of 2024, had been awaiting employment for years. The Court recognized their vested rights and restored the validity of the list:
“The order of the learned Single Judge is hereby set aside by restoring Government Memo No.641/R&R-A2/2012-2, dated 26.12.2014.”
“Separate Lists Based on Actual Displacement – Petitioner Belonged to First, Not Second List” — Court Corrects Misclassification
Another important clarification came on the classification of seniority lists. The Court recognized that two lists were prepared:
Noting that the writ petitioner was from Dachuru, the Court held:
“If the petitioner intends to seek employment under the displacement persons quota, he can insist to include his name in the first seniority list… he is not entitled to seek inclusion in the second list.”
The Court thus corrected the error of misclassification, ensured his right to appointment without affecting others, and protected the rights of those already on the second list.
“Welfare Policy Must Not Be Reduced to Bureaucratic Red Tape” — Court Urges Government to Act Justly
This judgment stands as a powerful judicial endorsement of compassionate governance in displacement-related employment policies. The Court reminded the State of its constitutional obligation under Articles 14 and 16, observing that a technical bar of delay cannot override substantive eligibility, especially when previous courts, including the Supreme Court, have upheld similar claims.
Referring to previous judgments including the dismissal of SLP (Civil) No. 14305 of 2011, the Court emphasized that settled law on the relaxation of time limits under G.O.Ms.No.98 must be uniformly followed.
The Bench concluded:
“Rehabilitation is not an administrative formality — it is a recognition of the loss and sacrifice suffered by individuals for the sake of public projects.”
In Writ Appeal No. 315 of 2024, the Court set aside the Single Judge’s order dated 05.01.2023 and restored the second seniority list, directing the government to provide employment to those candidates as per their turn.
In Writ Appeal No. 1289 of 2023, the Court directed the authorities to include the writ petitioner’s name in the first seniority list and provide him employment under the displacement quota, again as per his rightful turn.
The Court did not award costs, choosing to focus on restoring rights rather than assigning blame.
Date of Decision: 19 November 2025
