1 APHC010497872024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] FRIDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD CONTEMPT CASE NO: 4245/2024 Between: 1. KANCHERLA SRINIVASA RAO,, S/O. K.SUBBA RAO, AGED 60 YEARS, OCC- CONTRACT JR. LECTURER, VOCATIONAL (CET), SKR GOVT. JUNIOR COLLEGE, GUDURU, NELLORE DISTRICT (PRESENTLY TIRUPATI DISTRICT). ...PETITIONER AND 1. SRI KONA SESIDHAR IAS, PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT., STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. SMT KRATHIKA SHUKLA I A S, COMMISSIONER, BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION, TADEPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. SRI V V SUBBA RAO, REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR, BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION, SPSR NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 4. SRI S D JILANI BASHA, PRINCIPAL SKR GOVT. JUNIOR COLLEGE, GUDURU, NELLORE DISTRICT (PRESENTLY TIRUPATI DISTRICT). ...CONTEMNOR(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. G TUHIN KUMAR 2 Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 1. T VISHNU TEJA The Court made the following ORAL ORDER: Heard Sri G. Tuhin Kumar, learned Counsel for the Petitioners and Sri, T. Vishnu Teja, learned Counsel for the Respondents. 2. The Common Order passed by this Court dated: 25.04.2024, in W.P.Nos.8602, 8607, 8611 and 8628 of 2024 is to the effect that the Respondents were given liberty to consider the case to re-engage the services of the Petitioners therein, if they so desire, beyond the age of the 60 years subject to the conditions stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.15, dated 31.01.2022. The Order would also state that the said Order shall not be construed as creating a right to any Contractual employee to demand a direction in the nature of Mandamus to continue them in the services up to the beyond the age of 62 years and only liberty is granted to the Respondents to consider the case of the Petitioners for their re-engagement. Following the said Order of the Division Bench in W.A.No.770 of 2022 dated:13.02.2024, this Court passed a similar Order on 25.04.2024 in W.P.Nos.8602, 8607, 8611 and 8628 of 2024. 3. At the outset it should be clarified that neither the Division Bench in W.A.No.770 of 2022 (dated: 13.02.2024) nor this Court in W.P.Nos.8602, 8607, 8611 and 8628 of 2024 (dated: 25.04.2024) has issued any mandamus and therefore no one can complain against its non-implementation. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the Petitioners are not entitled to make any demand for consideration of the case. On the other hand, it has been clearly stated that only liberty was granted to the Official Respondents to consider the case of the Petitioners. In this view, this Contempt Case is devoid of any merit. 4. Accordingly, this Contempt Case is dismissed. 3 5. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. _______________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt: 03.01.2025 Mnr 4 95 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD CONTEMPT CASE No.4245 OF 2024 Dt: 03.01.2025 Mnr