1 APHC010446862024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] WEDNESDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD CONTEMPT CASE NO: 4434/2024 Between: 1. VADDE BALAKRISHNA, S/O. NOOKARAJU, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCC. SGT, PLACE OF WORKING GP SCHOOL (TW), UKKURBHA, PEDABAYALU MANDAL, ASR. 2. SAMIREDDI DALAPATHI, S/O. THRINADH, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC. SGT, PLACE OF WORKING. GPS (TW), EM ID 0258125, JARRIPADA, MUNCHANAGIPUTTU MANDAL, VISAKHPATNAM DISTRICT. 3. VANCHURBA.MOHAN DORA., S/O APPARAO AGE- 20/03/1984 39. EID- 0258417. OCCUPATION- SGT. ELIGIBLE FOR- SA BIOLOGY. DATE OF APPOINTMENT 13/03/2013. PLACE OF WORKING -GPS TW AGAMPADU G MADUGULA MANDAL, ASR DIST. 4. THANGULA VIJAYARAO,, S/O THANGULA SUNKRA, AGE 34 YEARS, OCC. GP (TW) SCHOOL, KARASALIGUDA VILLAGE PERMANENT ADDRESS- KIKKITIGUDA VALTHERU POST ARAKUVALLEY MANDAL ASR DIST. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. SRI KANTHILAL DANDE, PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TRIBAL, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH TRIBAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT VELAGAPUDI A P 2. SRIMATHI S BHARGAVI, COMMISSIONER/DIRECTOR OF TRIBAL WELFARE, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH NEAR KHANDARA HOTEL VIJAYAWADA 3. SRIMATHI M VIJAYA SUNITHA, THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR 2 VISHAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 4. SRI V ABHISEK, PROJECT OFFICER INTEGRATED TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY ITDA PADERU, VISHAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT ...CONTEMNOR(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. M SRIKANTH Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 1. RAMALINGESWARA RAO KOCHARLA KOTA The Court made the following: ORAL ORDER: Heard Sri M. Srikanth, learned Counsel for the Petitioners and Sri Ramalingeswara Rao Kocharla Kota, learned Counsel for the Respondents. 2. The present Contempt Case has been filed complaining of violation of paras 3 & 4 of the Order dated 19.02.2024 in W.P.No.3660 of 2024. Paras 3 & 4 of the said Order reads as under: “3. Para No.7 of the Written Instructions is extracted hereunder: “Further it is submitted that, the vacancies earmarked for promotes not considered to the contract teachers for regularization in the vacancies meant for promotion. Hence, there are not violated the rules.” 4. Since the Respondent Authorities have given the Written Instructions to the effect that the posts meant for promotees are not being touched for regularizing Contract Teachers, the present Writ Petition can be disposed of, by recording the undertaken given by the Project Officer.” 3. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioners that the Official Respondents, contrary to the undertaking given before this Court, have filled-in the posts which are meant for promotees with the Contract Teachers in the process of regularization. However, vide Proceeding dated 15.03.2025 bearing Rc.No.B2/963/2025, the case of the Petitioners herein 3 was also considered and the Respondents have promoted the Petitioners as well. 4. Sri Ramalingeswara Rao Kocharla Kota, learned Counsel for the Respondents submits that the Petitioners herein have also submitted the Joining Reports on 17.03.2025. 5. At this stage, learned Counsel for the Petitioners has drawn the attention of this Court to para 6 of the Counter Affidavit filed by the Project Officer, Integrated Tribal Development Agency (Respondent No.4) stating that the sanctioned posts under the promotion quota are 435 and that after filling certain posts by way of promotion from the eligible candidates, certain vacancies have arisen in certain feeder categories and therefore, 556 posts have fallen vacant for promotion. 6. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners would submit that the number of posts meant for promotion could not have exceeded 435 in number and that the averment made by the Respondent No.4 that 556 posts have fallen vacant under the promotion quota is factually incorrect. 7. Having considered the same, this Court is of the view that in the present case, these discrepancies in the averments in the Counter Affidavit would not be looked into. The Court may consider these issues at an appropriate time in appropriate Proceedings. 8. Since the Petitioners have been promoted, the present Contempt Case is closed accordingly. 9. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. ______________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt: 09.07.2025 Vns 4