1 APHC010405032024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3310] FRIDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO CONTEMPT CASE NO: 256/2025 Between: Muvva Ramalingam ...PETITIONER AND Sri Kona Sasidhar Ias and Others ...CONTEMNOR(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KAVITHA GOTTIPATI Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 1. G RAJU 2. RAMALINGESWARA RAO KOCHARLA KOTA 3. The Court made the following: ORDER: This Contempt case has been filed to punish the contemnors/respondents under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act 1971 for violation of the orders and for not implementing the orders of this Court in W.P.No.26101 of 2021 dated 25.07.2024. 2 2. This Court, vide order, dated 25.07.2024, in W.P.No.26101 of 2021, has disposed of the writ petition. The operative portion of the same, as under: “…In view of the same, it is suffice to issue a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner without reference to the G.O.Ms.No.257, General Administration (Ser.C) Department, dated 10.06.1999 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.” 3. Heard Smt. G. Kavitha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri K. Ramalingeswara Rao and Sri G.Raju, learned counsels appearing for the respondents. 4. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, after receipt of final orders passed by this Court in WP No.26101 of 2021, the petitioner has made a representation dated 31.07.2024 to the 1st respondent requesting to implement the same, and apart from that, he submitted another representation also on 23.08.2024. she further submits that, the 1st respondent herein has already forwarded proposals to the 2nd respondent/proposed respondent on 8.6.2024 to place the matter before the Review/Special DPC to review the panel of Joint Director/RJDs fit for promotion to the category of Additional Director of School Education in respect of the petitioner for the panel year 2019-2020. In these circumstances, the petitioner has also submitted a representation to the 2nd respondent on 23.8.2024 and requested to consider his case for promotion as Additional Director of School Education on par with his immediate junior in the panel year 2019-2020. But there is no response from the respondents. Though this Court has directed to consider the case of the 3 petitioner, but the respondents failed to implement the orders of this Court, which amounts to contempt of Courts. Therefore, prayed to allow the present contempt case. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has furnished a copy of Memo vide Memo No.2127194/Ser.I/A1/2023, dated 01.10.2024 of the 1st respondent, wherein it is stated as under: “…In this regard, the G.O.Ms.No.257. General Administration (Ser.C) Department, dated 10.06.1999, enables consideration of claims of offi for promotion falling under the third category, if, even after completion of two years from the date of the Departmental Promotion Committee or Screening Committee meeting, there was no progress in the enquiry/trial/investigation. However, even this consideration is confined to officers against whom charge leveled is not grave, but is a minor one, not dereliction of duty. In other words, even if two years time has elapsed after the earlier Departmental Promotion Committee meeting and there is no progress in the case, the officer cannot be considered for granting adhoc promotion also if charge leveled is either one of moral turpitude, misappropriation, embezzlement and grave dereliction of duty or all of them. Thus, to claim adhoc promotion, Officer is required to fulfill two conditions, (1) that even after two years from the date of earlier Departmental Promotion Committee meeting, there is no progress in the departmental enquiry/trial/investigation; and (ii) that the allegations leveled do not deal with moral turpitude, misappropriation, embezzlement and grave dereliction of duties. 9. Whereas in the instant case, the claim of the individual for awarding Additional Director promotion from the panel year 2019-20, has never been placed before the DPC and the DPC has neither included nor deferred his name. The review DPC proposal in question, was returned by the GA Department, stating that it is not feasible for awarding retrospective promotion from the panel year 2019-20, as such, a conclusion may be arrived from the above remarks of the GA Department, that they may examine the proposal, if it would be a regular DPC proposal instead of review DPC proposal. Even if, for sending a regular DPC proposal to the GA Dept., the name of the individual stands at Sl. No.2 in the seniority list of JDs/RJDSEs, for which two vacancies of Additional Directors are required. As of now, there are no vacancies in the said cadre. 10. Therefore, in the light of the above orders of the Hon'ble High court in W.P. No. 26101/2021 and as rightly pointed out by the GA Department in the reference 6th cited not to place the proposal for retrospective promotion before the DPC, the only alternative available is to place the regular DPC proposal for prospective promotion, if considered necessary, for which there are no vacancies readily available in the cadre of Additional Directors. As such, at this juncture, the request of the individual for awarding Additional Director promotion on par with his immediate junior, who got promoted in the panel year 2019-20, is not feasible for consideration, as the criminal case is still pending against him, and he is not completely exonerated from the charges. 11. The Director of School Education is therefore, requested to take further necessary action accordingly.” 4 6. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that vide Memo No.ESE02-11021/623/2019-Est1-CSE, dated 10.11.2024 issued by the Director of School Education, the request of the petitioner herein for consideration of promotion to the post of Additional Director of School Education has been rejected. Therefore, the order of this Court has been complied with by the respondent and hence nothing survives in the present contempt case. 7. In view of the above, as contended by the respondents’ counsel that the order of this Court has been complied with, no orders are required to be passed in the present contempt case and the same is liable to be closed. 8. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to challenge the proceedings dated 10.11.2024. No costs. 9. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed. _____________________________ DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J. Date : -03-2025 Gvl 5 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO C.R.P. No.256 of 2025 Date : 07.03.2025 Gvl