APHC010568092023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] THURSDAY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD CONTEMPT CASE NO: 6061/2023 Between: 1. S.CH.ADINARAYANA, SIB. LATE RAMULU, AGED 53 YEARS, WORKING AS SECONDARY GRADE TEACHER (UN-AIDED) AT 5TH BATTALION, A.P.S.P.U.P. SCHOOL, CHINTALAVALASA, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT 2. P.SATYAM,, S/O. SUFI NAIDU, AGED 53 YEARS, WORKING AS SECONDARY GRADE TEACHER (UN-AIDED) AT 5TH BATTALION, A.P.S.P.U.P. SCHOOL, CHINTALAVALASA, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. SRI PRAVEEN PRAKASH IAS, PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, SECRETARIAT AT VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. SRI SURESH KUMAR I A S, COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTORATE OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, ANDHRA PRADESH, ANJENEYA TOWERS, NTPC ROAD, IBRAHIMPATNAM, VIJAYAWADA, A.P., KRISHNA DISTRICT 3. SRI LINGESWARA REDDY, DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT 4. SRI CHINTA VENKATA SATYA PADMANBHAM RAJU C, ORRESPONDENT, A.P.S.P.U.P. SCHOOL, 5TH BATTALION, A.P.S.P. 2 BATTALION. CHINTALAVALASA, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT ...CONTEMNOR(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. P SRINIVASA RAO Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 1. L V S NAGARAJU 2. BH RAMA KRISHNA NAIK The Court made the following ORAL ORDER: Heard Sri P. Srinivasa Rao, learned Counsel for the Contempt Petitioners, Sri L.V.S. Nagaraju, learned Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri B. Rama Krishna Naik, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.4. 2. The present Contempt Case is filed with regard to willful non- compliance of Para No.4 of the Order passed by this Court dated 07.01.2022 in W.P.No.39618 of 2022. The facts in a nutshell, which are relevant for the purpose of this Contempt Case, are that the Petitioners herein, who are the Writ Petitioners in W.P.No.39618 of 2022 are working as Secondary Grade Teachers and were posted in A.P.S.P.U.P School, 5th Battalion, A.P.S.P Battalion, Chintalavalasa, Vizianagaram District. The Writ Petitioners herein were made to work on temporary basis in the place of aided posts and as such they were paid under unaided category. Having taken note of the fact that at some stage, it was the policy of the Government that unaided teachers who are working in aided posts were to be regularized, this Court had issued certain interim directions. One such interim direction in its Order dated 07.12.2022 in W.P.No.39618 of 2022, is now under consideration for compliance. 3. For ready reference, Para Nos.2 to 4 of the Order dated 07.12.2022 in W.P.No.39618 of 2022 are usefully extracted hereunder: 3 “2. It is the contention of the Writ Petitioners that while they were working under unaided regular vacancies, there were vacancies available even in aided posts as well. But the steps were not taken by the concerned Authorities to fill the aided posts and they (the Writ Petitioners) were made to continue to work under the unaided posts. In the exercise of the policy of the Government, the only aided teachers who are working are sought to be absorbed, and therefore, the Writ Petitioners apprehend that they would be left high and dry, as they are serving in the Respondent No.4 Institution since 1997. 3. Learned Counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court to the Memo bearing No. ESE02-17/44/2019-PS1-CSE dated 17.06.2022 issued by the Director (Co-ordination), Vizianagaram to the District Education Officer, Vizianagaram with a stern warning/direction not to send any proposals recommending for consideration of the teachers working in unaided posts. 4. In this view of the matter, there shall be a direction to the Respondents to temporarily continue the services of the teachers in any Institution till the disposal of the present Writ Petition.” 4. Sri L.V.S. Nagaraju, learned Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri B. Rama Krishna Naik, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.4 have filed separate Counter Affidavits. 5. Learned Counsel for Respondents would submit that, as on the date on which the interim direction was given by this Court, the Government under its policy, have already merged several Educational Institutions and had attempted to rationalise the posting of Teachers basing on the work load and strength of the school. In such exercise, the first priority was given in filling-up the vacancies with Teachers who have been working in aided posts and who are surplus in other schools. Learned Counsel for Respondents would submit that the teachers working in unaided posts could not be accommodated, inasmuch as the existing aided teachers were sufficient. Learned Counsel for Respondents would submit that, it is precisely for this reason that the Writ Petitioners could not be accommodated in any other Institution and the same is beyond the control of the Respondents. It is submitted that non-compliance of the Order of this Court, is not willful action, but on account of the reasons which are beyond the control of the Respondents. 4 6. Having considered these aspects, this Court is of the opinion that the Respondents herein cannot be saddled with the liability of Contempt since the Order of this Court could not be implemented for reasons that were beyond the control of the Respondents herein. Accordingly, this Contempt Case is closed. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed anything on merit and the observations made by this Court shall not have any bearing in the pending W.P.No.39618 of 2022. No Order as to Costs. 7.Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. ______________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt: 06.03.2025 JKS 5 45 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD C.C. No. 6061 OF 2023 06.03.2025 JKS