APHC010277972021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] WEDNESDAY ,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CONTEMPT CASE NO: 1338/2021 Between: Pakala Devakanth, and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND Dr G Vani Mohan Ias and Others ...CONTEMNOR(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. P V KRISHNAIAH Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 1. A PRABHAKAR SARMA SC FOR TTD 2. 3. V.DYUMANI (SC for TTD) The Court made the following: 2 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CONTEMPT CASE NO: 1338/2021 ORDER: This contempt case is filed against the respondents for willful disobedience of the orders dated 15.02.2021 passed by this Court in W.P.No.467 of 2020. The operative portion of the said order is extracted hereunder: “Contractual appointment is for a specified period and not entitled to regularization. Grant of extension of tenure based, does not confer status of employee nor can he/she seek regularization of his/her services in absence of any statutory Rule recognizing such right in his/her favour. (vide Committee of Management, Arya Nagar Inter College, Arya Nagar, Kanpur, Through Its Manager And Another v. Sree Kumar Tiwary and another) In view of the catena of perspective pronouncements laid down by the Apex Court, it is difficult to accept the request of these petitioners to regularize/absorb their services in the educational institutions under the control of TTD with retrospective effect from the date of their initial appointments, for the simple reason that, the petitioners were selected based on a notification issued by the second respondent, which is purely on contract basis for a period of ten months. Working for ten months in the educational institution of TTD with an intermittent gap of two months, though contract period was extended for different periods, that would not confer any right, since TTD Service Rules 3 does not permit such employment on contract basis. Even as on date, the contract period was not extended. On this ground alone, the petitioners are disentitled to claim the relief in these petitions. Hence, the point is answered in favour of the respondents and against the petitioners. In the result, Writ Petitions are allowed-in-part, declaring G.O.Rt.No.1411 Revenue (Endts.III) Department dated 28.11.2019 as illegal and arbitrary and the same is hereby set-aside, while declining to issue a direction for regularization of the petitioners.” 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in view of the clear and categorical finding of this Court, the petitioners are not entitled for their claim of absorption or regularization. This Court also set aside the G.O.Rt.No.1411 dated 28.11.2019 directing the respondents not to proceed further in pursuance of G.O.Rt.No.1411. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that at the time of filing of the Writ Petition, the petitioners are continued in the service. Even though their absorption was negatived, but the petitioners are entitled to continue in service. But without issuing any express notice or order, the respondents have not continued the petitioners, on the guise of the contract period is already completed. Therefore, it amounts to contempt. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that as directed by this Court the respondents are not proceeded further in terms of 4 G.O.Rt.No.1411 dated 28.11.2019. She further submits that there is no express order or any direction of this Court directing the respondents to continue the petitioners even after completion of their contract period. In the absence of any specific direction, the respondents complied with the orders of this Court. Therefore, the Contempt Case is liable to be closed. 5. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents and on perusal of the order of this Court as extracted above, it is observed that there is no specific direction or observation of this Court for continuation of the service of the petitioners even after completion of the contract period. In the absence of the same, this Court cannot proceed with this Contempt Case as if the order of this Court is either violated or disobeyed. It is settled preposition of law that the proceedings under Section 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act should be observed in strict sense, it cannot be proceeded either on assumptions or presumptions, much more nothing can be drawn other than the orders of this Court. Therefore, in the instant case there is no direction for continuation of service of petitioners. Hence, no contempt is made out by the petitioners. 6. In view of the same, there is neither violation nor deviation of the orders of this Court. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed. However, the petitioners are always at liberty to assert their rights by initiating appropriate proceedings. No order as to costs. 5 Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the contempt case shall stand closed. ________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 19.02.2025 TTPPSS 6 523 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA (closed) CONTEMPT CASE NO: 1338/2021 19.02.2025 TTPPSS