APHC010444582024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] TUESDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CONTEMPT CASE NO: 3937/2024 Between: 1. SUVVADA JHANSI LAKSHMI BAI, W/O. NOOKARAJU, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O. C/O G GOVIND, DOOR NO 2-2-8/A, PALLI PETA STREET, PEDDA BAZAR, SAMALKOTA, PIN 533440, KAKINADA DISTRICT, AP. ...PETITIONER AND 1. SRI KONA SASIDHAR, S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER WORKING AS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SCHOOL (IE) DEPARTMENT A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. SRI KRITIKA SHUKLA, D/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER WORKING AS THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, TADEPALLI GUNTUR DISTRICT 3. SRI I SARADA, D/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER WORKING AS REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR OF INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, AP 4. SRI G G K NOOKARAJU, S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER WORKING AS DISTRICT VOCATIONAL EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, ZONE-1 AND 2, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT 2 ...CONTEMNOR(S): Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act 1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit file herein the High Court may be pleased to pleased to punish the respondents under Section 10 and 12 of the contempt of Court Act for the wilful disobedience of the order of this honourable Court Passed on 27-09-2023 in WP No 25446 of 2023 by the Lordships Mr. Justice Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda on the file of this Hon'ble Court and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. DOMMETI MARY SONIA Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 1. RAMALINGESWARA RAO KOCHARLA KOTA The Court made the following: 3 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CONTEMPT CASE NO: 3937/2024 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court passed an order dated 27.09.2023 in W.P.No.25446 of 2023, which is extracted hereunder: “After hearing both the learned counsel, this Court, without going into the merits of the matter, as per the considered view that this writ petition can be disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider the candidature of the petitioners along with others, whose applications are pending for consideration for re- engagement of their services as contract faculty in respect of institutions which are under the control of 2nd respondent, without reference to the rejection order dated 23.08.2023, as and when the vacancies are available for reengagement as per the instructions dated 27.09.2023. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that even though this Court passed an order as extracted above, the respondents not complied with the order of this Court and issued a speaking order dated 08.12.2024 rejecting the claim of the petitioner in similar terms as was rejected on 23.08.2023 which is nothing but violation/disobedience on the part of the respondents. 4 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that this Court vide order dated 27.09.2023 specifically directed the respondents without reference to the earlier rejection order dated 23.08.2023, that means the grounds for earlier rejection on 23.08.2023 cannot be reiterated while considering the case of the petitioner afresh. He further submits that while passing the order dated 27.09.2023, this Court considered the instructions of the respondents dated 27.09.2023, wherein the respondents stated that if the vacancies are available, they will re-engage the services of the petitioner. But, contrary to the same the respondents reiterated the earlier contentions/grounds which were enumerated in the order of rejection dated 23.08.2023 in the present speaking orders dated 08.12.2024. Therefore, the respondents are liable for punishment under Section 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents filed counter- affidavit, wherein it is stated as follows: “It is respectfully submitted that, in obedience to the orders dated 27.09.2023 of this Hon’ble Court in W.P.No.25446 of 2023, the candidature of the petitioner has been considered for reengagement as Contract faculty on requirement basis and found infeasibility as per the Government instructions and rules in vogue. Therefore, informing the same factors, a detailed speaking order has been issued to the petitioners vide Director of Intermediate Education’s proceedings Rc.No.Ser.II-2/2636205/2024 dated 08.12.2024, duly complying with the orders passed by this Hon’ble Court in W.P.No.25446 of 2023 dt.27.09.2023 in true letter 5 and spirit. It is respectfully submitted that it is not feasible to consider the claim of the petitioner. With detail reasons a speaking order has been issued if any further grievance, it give a fresh cause of action to the petitioner.” 6. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that after considering the case of the petitioner and basing upon the non-availability of the vacancies, the respondents passed a speaking order/proceedings dated 08.12.2024. In view of the non-availability of vacancies, the service of the petitioner is not re-engaged and the same was duly informed to the petitioner by way of a speaking order. As such the order of this Court dated 27.09.2023 was duly complied with and the respondents neither violated the order of this Court nor disobeyed any procedure or direction as directed by this Court. Hence, the contempt case is liable to be dismissed. 7. Considering the submissions made by both the learned counsels and on perusal of the material placed on record, it is observed that this Court directed the 2nd respondent to consider the case of the petitioner along with other applicants and re-engage the service of the petitioner subject to availability of vacancies. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents and in the speaking order/proceedings dated 08.12.2024 issued by respondent No.2, it is clearly and categorically stated that there are no vacancies available for consideration of the case of the petitioner. It is further stated that they considered the candidature of the petitioner along with all other applicants in strict sense, but due to non- availability of vacancies, the claim of the petitioner for re-engagement was not 6 considered. Accordingly, a speaking order was passed on 08.12.2024. Even though as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a speaking order of respondent No.2 may be in reiteration of earlier rejection order to some extent, but the petitioner did not choose to file any material before this Court to substantiate that the vacancies are available with the respondents or somebody who are similarly situated along with the petitioner were appointed, after orders of this Court. In the absence of any material evidence to prove that the vacancies are available with respondent No.2 or some others were appointed without considering the petitioner, this Court cannot find fault with respondent No.2 in passing a speaking order, even though it may be in reiteration of the earlier rejection order. On perusal of the material filed by the petitioner as well as speaking order of respondent No.2, this Court neither found any violation nor observed any disobedience on the part of the respondents. 8. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed. No order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the contempt case shall stand closed. ________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 09.09.2025 TTPPSS 7 27 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA (closed) CONTEMPT CASE NO: 3937/2024 09.09.2025 TTPPSS