Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/6276/2026 of CHINTANIPPALA TAVIT NAIDU Vs THE STATE OF AP on 5 March 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3208] FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 6276/2026 Between: 1. CHINTANIPPALA TAVIT NAIDU, S/O. LATE JAGANNADHAM,
APHC010114892026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA
PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH
WRIT PETITION NO: 6276/2026
Between:
1. CHINTANIPPALA
TAVIT
NAIDU,
S/O.
LATE
JAGANNADHAM, UN-EMPLOYEE, AGED ABOUT 37
YEARS, BORAGAVALASA VILLAGE, BURJA MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT.
2. SAILADA VENKATARAMANA,, S/O. LATE TAVUDU, AGED
ABOUT
YEARS.
UN-EMPLOYEE,
R/O.
HIRAMANDALAM VILLAGE, HIRAMANDALAM MANDAL
SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 3.
3. DANNANA
NAGESWARA
RAO,,
S/O.D.REYYANNA,
APPANNA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS. UN-EMPLOYEE, BORAGAVALASA
VILLAGE,
BURJA
MANDAL,
SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 4.
4. SANKARANA YUGANDHAR,, S/O. S.SATYAM, AGED
ABOUT 39 YEARS. UN-EMPLOYEE, BORAGAVALASA
VILLAGE, BURJA MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT.
5. .PANCHADI GOVINDA RAO,, S/O. P. APPA RAO, AGED
ABOUT 38 YEARS. UN-EMPLOYEE, KRISHNAPURAM, AMADALAVALASA, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. THE
STATE
OF
AP,
WATER
RESOURCES
DEPARTMENT, REP. BY ITS PRI. SECRETARY,
SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT- 522503
2. THE STATE OF ANDHARA PRADESH, IRRIGATION CAD
(RR) DEPARTMENT, REP. BY ITS PRI. SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT- 522503 3.
3. THE
DISTRICT
COLLECTORCHAIRMAN,
DISTRICT
SELECTION COMMITTEE, SRIKAKULAM, SRIKAKULAM
DISTRICT- 523001
4. THE
SUPERINTENDING
ENGINEER,
B.R.R.VAMSADHARA
PROJECT
CIRCLE,
WATER
RESOURCES
DEPARTMENT,
SRIKAKULAM,
SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT- 523001
5. THE
SPECIAL
DEPUTY
COLLECTOR,
LAND
ACQUISITION,
UNIT-IV,
NEAR
RTC
COMPLEX,
SRIKAKULAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT- 532001.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. S V MUNI REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR SERVICES I
2. GP FOR SERVICES II
The Court made the following:
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH
WRIT PETITION No.6276 of 2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
The present writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: “….to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 2 to 5 in not considering the case of petitioners for employment, by including their names in the list, who seek employment under the displaced persons quota of Vamsadhara Project, ( Vamsadhara Project Scheme) as per eligibility in terms of G.O.Ms.No.98 Irrigation and CAD (PW) Dept. dt. 15.04.1986, as illegal, unjust, arbitrary, contrary to Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondents-Authorities, to consider case of petitioners for providing employment by including their names in the list, who seek employment under the displaced persons quota of Vamsadhara Project (Vamsadhara Project Scheme), in terms of G.O.Ms.No.98 Irrigation and CAD (PW) Dept.dt. 15.04.1986 of the 2nd respondent, to appoint in any suitable post, forthwith.….”
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners’ lands were acquired by the respondents for the purpose of Vamsadhara Project and awards were also passed and compensation was paid. In fact, the petitioners have lodged a claim for consideration under G.O.Ms.No.98, Irrigation (Project Wing) Department, dated 15.04.1986. However, surprisingly, the respondents have not included the petitioners in the list for consideration, though several others were considered and appointments were also provided. The petitioners have made applications on several occasions disputing the action of the respondents in not considering their case.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in similar facts and circumstances, this Court has already granted relief in W.P.No.33135 of 2023 by order dated 23.01.2026, and therefore the petitioners are also entitled to the same relief.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners further brought to the notice of this Court that under G.O.Ms.No.98, Irrigation (Project Wing) Department, dated 15.04.1986, the condition of one-year limitation prescribed therein cannot be insisted upon, in view of Government Memo No.480-LAR (2)/87-2, dated
24.08.1987, the orders of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.7917 of 2003, dated 16.07.2007, the judgment of the Hon’ble High 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 of 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.
6. In fact, the learned counsel for the petitioners also brought to the notice of this Court the observations made in W.A.No.356 of 2023. Certain writ petitions, wherein rejection of the cases of the petitioners under G.O.Ms.No.98, Irrigation (Project Wing) Department, dated 15.04.1986, was challenged, were allowed, and the appeals preferred therein were disposed of with the following observation: “In this Connection it is respectfully submitted that recently this Court rendered an elaborate Judgment on the subject matter in W.P.(AT) No.174 of 2021 and batch, dated 13.12.2022 by considering all the earlier Judgments passed by APAT and the D.B. of this Hon’ble High Court in W.P.No. 2436 of 2011 which was confirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.14305 of 2011, dated 04.07.2011, directing the Respondents to provide employment to the Petitioners therein by adopting the procedure prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 15.04.1986 and also in respect of other candidates, who now remain out of employment. I am also similarly situated and identically placed to the petitioners therein and entitled for appointment in terms of G.O.Ms.No.98. Hence, this Writ Petition.”
7. In view of the directions of the Division Bench of this Hon’ble High Court in W.P.No.2436 of 2011, this Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for appointment as per G.O.Ms.No.98, Irrigation (Project Wing) Department, dated 15.04.1986, and to pass appropriate orders. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH
Date: 06.03.2026 Ivd
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH
WRIT PETITION No.6276 of 2026
Dated: 06.03.2026
Ivd