GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. P RAMACHANDRA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners filed this writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to order dated 30.6.2010 in OA No. 10637 of 2009 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad wherein, the petitioners are directed to consider the case of the 1st respondent herein for appointment in terms of G.O. Ms. No.98 dated 15.4.1986.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the land belonging to the 1st respondent's family was acquired by the Government in the year 1980 and an award was also passed in respect of the same and possession of the land was taken in the year 1984. THE Government issued G.O. Ms. No.98, dated 15.4.1986, providing employment to the displaced persons. THEn, the 1st respondent filed OA No.3289 of 2008 before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal seeking a direction to the respondents therein to give appointment to him in the light of the said G.O. On the interim directions passed by the Tribunal, the 4th petitioner herein has considered the application of the 1st petitioner and rejected the same through order, dated 24.5.2008, stating that the case of the 1st respondent cannot be considered for providing employment in terms of G.O. Ms. No.98, dated 15.4.1986, as he made application after lapse of more than 9 years from the date of his actual displacement and that the G.O. stipulates that the displaced persons shall make applications within a period of one year from the date of actual displacement of the family. Challenging the said order, the 1st respondent filed the impugned O.A. It is further stated by the 1st respondent that subsequent to the G.O. Ms. No.98, the Government issued Memo No.480-LAR (2) 87/2, dated 24.8.1987, stating that the condition of applying for appointment within one year from the date of actual displacement does not apply to such of the persons/families, who were displaced prior to the issuance of the said G.O. THE petitioners filed counter-affidavit in the O.A. stating that the family of the 1st respondent was actually displaced in the year 1988, but not in 1984 and hence, the 1st respondent is not eligible to extend benefit under the said G.O.

(3.) HEARD the learned Government Pleader for Services-II and the learned Counsel for the 1st respondent.