IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CONTEMPT CASE NO: 5850 OF 2023 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 commit the Respondent for having deliberately, wantonly and wilfully disobeyed the orders of this Hon'ble Court passed in Writ Petition No. 14122 of 2023 on 16.6.2023 Between: Pennabadi Amaranath Reddy, S/o. P.Jaganmohan Reddy, Aged 43 years Occ: Unemployee, R/o. Vutukuruvandlapalli Village BalaTimmayyaga riPalli Post Chakrayapet Mandal YSR Kadapa District - 516 259. ...PETITIONER AND 1. Sri J.Pradeep Kumar, (IRSME), S/o. and age not known to the Petitioner The Secretary Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission R & B Building 2"^ Floor M G Road Bandar Road Opposite Indira Gandhi Municipal Complex Vijayawada - 520 010. I 2. Sri Dr. Pola Bhaskar (IAS), S/o. and age not known to the Petitioner The Secretary, General Administration Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. A.P. ...CONTEMNORS Counsel for the Petitioner : M/s. GODA RAMALAKSHMI Counsel for the Respondents : SRI G. RAJU Counsel for the Respondents :SRI V.VENKATA NAGA RAJU (SC FOR APPSC) The Court made the following order: APHC010550322023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATl (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CONTEMPT CASE NO: 5850 of 2023 Between: ...PETITIONER Pennabadi Amaranath Reddy AND ...CONTEMNOR(S) Sri J Pradeep Kumar and Others Counsel for the Petitioner; 1.GODA RAMALAKSHMI Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 1.G RAJU 2.V.VENKATA NAGA RAJU (SC FOR APPSC) The Court made the following ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. This contempt case is filed against the respondents for willful disobedience 2. of the order dated 16.06.2024 passed by this Court in W.P.No.14122 of 2023. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance of order of 3. this Court dated 16.06.2023, the respondents have constituted a third-party Expert Committee for further enquiry and for submission of report and same was mentioned in their counter affidavit also. After constitution of the said Committee, the Committee had enquired into the matter and found that an injustice was occurred to the petitioner in evaluation of the papers. He further submits that, having found by the Expert Committee that injustice was occurred to the petitioner, simply rejecting the case of the petitioner by way of Memo dated 16.08.2024 amounts to violation of orders of this Court. He further submits that after inviting a report from the Expert Committee, rejecting the claim of the petitioner by way of Memo dated 16.08.2024, without considering the said report is nothing but willful violation of law, the said action of the respondents attracts Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 5. respondents submit that, it is true that an Expert Committee was appointed on 19.07.2023 for checking up of errors that were occurred in the evaluation process and found that some errors were crept in the evaluation process. Non availability of any provision to answer the report of the Expert Committee as per the scheme as well as Rules made under the Act, the respondents except observing the report of Expert Committee, the same cannot be implemented due to efflux of time and entire selection was completed a decade ago. Having no other option. the respondents considered the request of the petitioner, issued the impugned He further submits that the order of this Court was Memo on 16.08.2024. complied with in a true spirit. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and on perusal of the material on record, this Court observed that even though this Court directed to consider 6. the request of the petitioner, but the respondents went further and appointed an Expert Committee, to enquire the matter in detail. Once they invited such enquiry and report from the Expert Committee, the respondents would have exercised their power to do justice to the petitioner herein in terms of the enquiry or it can deviate the enquiry report if it is contrary to law or against the public interest. it is further contended by the learned Standing Counsel for the 7. respondents in his counter affidavit that though the Committee found fault with the evaluation of papers in respect of the petitioner herein, the respondents Commission is not empowered to rectify the mistakes and do justice once published. As such, considering the Committee report and passing an order on merits, is not within the purview/control of the respondents Commission. In view of the same, having no other option, the petitioner issued impugned memo dated 16.8.2024 in compliance of the orders of this Court. It is further observed that the orders of this Court have been complied with by the respondents having got inquired and invited report. 8. However, since the respondents complied with the orders of this Court, no Contempt Case can be made out by the petitioner. It is settled proposition of law that while adjudicating the Contempt Case proceedings under the provisions of Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the Court should comply with every aspect in Contempt case, whether the respondents have committed any guilt or violated the orders of this court and caused for any contempt or not. In the case on hand, the respondents have complied with the orders of this Court, without there being any ambiguity. 9. In view of the same, the Contempt Case is closed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to challenge the Memo dated 16.08.2024, if he is so aggrieved, in accordance with law. No order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the contempt case shall stand closed. Sd/- V. DIWAKAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. Sri J.Pradeep Kumar, (IRSME), S/o. and age not known to the Petitioner The Secretary Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission R & B Building 2nd Floor M G Road Bandar Road Opposite Indira Gandhi Municipal Complex Vijayawada - 520 010, 2. Sri Dr. Pola Bhaskar (IAS), S/o. and age not known to the Petitioner The Secretary, General Administration Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. A.P. 3. One CC to M/s. Goda Ramalakshmi Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri G. Raju, .Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Sri V.Venkata Naga Raju, (SC FOR APPSC) Advocate [OPUC] 6. Three CD Copies HIGH COURT MKP DATED :28/01/2025 ORDER CC.No.5850 of 2023 15 FEB 2025 col ^ . Curreni aeciion ^ CLOSING THE CONTEMPT CASE