Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/8434/2024 of PABBATHI MADHU SUDHAN Vs THE STATE OF AP on 3 February 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3208] WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 8434/2024 Between: 1. PABBATHI MADHU SUDHAN, S/O. MALLESWARAIAH AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, OCC
APHC010162862024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH
WRIT PETITION NO: 8434/2024
Between:
1. PABBATHI MADHU SUDHAN, S/O. MALLESWARAIAH AGED ABOUT
YEARS,
OCC
UN-EMPLOYEE
R/O.
DOOR
NO.9-1-119,
BHAVANARAYANA NAGAR, GOPAVARAM MANDAL,
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF AP, REP., BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, IRRIGATION AND COMMAND AREA DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT
BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI.
2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, NTR TELUGU GANGA PROJECT, OPP. SV
MEDICAL COLLEGE, OLD ALIPIRI ROAD, TIRUPATHI.
3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, SOMASILA PROJECT CIRCLE, DARGAMITTA, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.
4. THE DISTRICT SELECTION COMMITTEE, YSR DISTRICT, REP., BY
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND CHAIRMAN KADAPA.
5. THE TAHSILDHAR, GOPAVARAM MANDAL, YSR DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.4 in not including the petitioner name in the list of eligible candidates list communicated by him for employment under Somasila Project Displaced persons quota as per G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 15.04.1986, even though, he is fully eligible for the same and his father name was included in the first list of eligible candidates and his name was included in the subsequent list of eligible candidates communicated by the respondent No.4that too without assigning any reasons whatsoever, as arbitrary, illegal, colourable exercise of power and contrary to the well established legal principals apart from being violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to him under Articles 14, 19
and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents No.2 to 4 to include the name of the petitioner in the list of eligible candidates communicated by the respondent No.4 and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents No.2 to 4 to include the name of the petitioner in the latest list of eligible candidates communicated by the respondent No.4 by considering his eligibility criteria, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. KASA JAGANMOHAN REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR REVENUE
2. GP FOR SERVICES III
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH
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 Writ Petition is field under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the following relief: “…pleased to issue an appropriate Writ Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.4 in not including the petitioner name in the list of eligible candidates list communicated by him for employment under Somasila Project Displaced persons quota as per G.O.Ms.No.98 dated 15.04.1986 even though he is fully eligible for the same and his father name was included in the first list of eligible candidates and his name was included in the subsequent list of eligible candidates communicated by the respondent No.4 that too without assigning any reasons whatsoever as arbitrary illegal colourable exercise of power and contrary to the well established legal principals apart from being violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to him under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents Nos.2 to 4 to include the name of the petitioner in the list of eligible candidates communicated by the respondent No 4 and pass…”
2. The petitioner and his family were displaced from Adurivaripalli Village, Gopavaram Mandal, Y.S.R.District as the same was submerged under Somasilla project in the year 1989. As per G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 15.04.1986, the State of Andhra Pradesh formulated a scheme of rehabilitation of persons who are displaced in major and medium irrigation projects by providing employment to the post of Junior Assistant/Typist or below cadres to their sons, daughters or spouses. Thereafter, the respondents undertook the eligible candidates and shortlisted 321 eligible candidates. However, the names of the petitioner or his family members were not included in the first phase list of 321 candidates. Hence, this Writ Petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the Common Order of this Court in W.P.Nos.33813 and 33814 of 2025, wherein employment was directed to be offered to the dependents of the land owners therein, and seeks similar relief in the present case also. Learned counsel further submits that the land acquisition took place in the year 1989 and despite the lapse of more than 30 years, no employment has been provided.
4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader does not dispute that the petitioner has been shortlisted for employment and submits that their cases will be considered and necessary action will be initiated for providing employment in terms of G.O.Ms.No.98 dated 15.04.1986, as per Rules in force.
5. Considering the fact that the lands of the petitioners were acquired way back in the year 1989, the delay in providing employment cannot be justified; more so, as the employment was to be treated as part of promised compensation.
6. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to consider the cases of the petitioners for employment on par with similarly placed persons, as expeditiously as possible. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH
Date: 04.02.2026 M K K
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH
WRIT PETITION No.8434 of 2024
Dated: 04.02.2026
M K K