1 APHC010568722018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD CONTEMPT CASE NO: 2221/2018 Between: 1. LALAM CHINA APALA NAIDU, S/O. RAMULU, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O. PARAWADA (M) AND (P), VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 2. GUNDA NARASINGA RAO, S/O. ATCHUTA RAO, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, VADACHEEPURIPALLI (V), PARAWADA (M), VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 3. MOTTURU CHINA SATYA RAO, S/O. GANGUNAIDU, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, DHARMARAYUDUPETA (V), PARAWADA (M), VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 4. BODDU TRINADHA RAO, S/O. SATYAM, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, PARAWADA (V) AND (M), VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 5. BURADA APPALA RAJU, S/O. APPA RAO, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, ELECTRICIAL (ITI), PARAMADA (M), VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 6. KORUPOLU MUTHYALA NAIDU, S/O. SANYASI NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, ODACHEEPURAPALLI, PARAMADA (M), VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 7. BUSA APPALA RAJU, S/O. RAMA RAO, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, GORUSUVANIPALEM, PARAMADA (M), VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 8. KARRI VENKATA RAO, S/O. APPANNA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, PARAMADA (M), DESAPATHRUNIPALEM VILLAGE, VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 2 9. KORUPOLU APPALANAIDU, S/O. SANNI BABU, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, ODACHEEPURAPALLI, VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 10. CH. SITHAYYA, S/O. CHINA APPANNA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, PARAMADA (M), VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. SRI SHIVA PRASAD, ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, NTPC LIMITED, SIMHADRI SUPER THERMAL POWER PROJECT, SIMHADRI, PARAVADA MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM 531 020. 2. SRI ARUP RATAN MAITI, GENERAL MANAGER, NTPC LIMITED, SIMHADRI SUPER THERMAL POWER PROJECT, PARAVADA MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM 531 020. ...CONTEMNOR(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. J SUDHEER Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 1. G SUDHA The Court made the following: ORAL ORDER: Heard Ms. Sheikh Neha Hassan, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri J. Sudheer, learned Counsel for the Petitioners and Smt. G. Sudha, learned Counsel appearing online for the Respondents. 2. In compliance with the Order of this Court dated 31.07.2025, Sri Shiva Prasad (Respondent No.1) and Sri Arup Ratan Maiti (Respondent No.2) have appeared before the Court. Form-I Notice issued on 31.07.2025 is recalled. The appearance of the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 is dispensed with. 3. The present Contempt Petition is filed complaining of non-compliance of the Order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.34131 of 2011 dated 28.08.2012. The operative portion of the Order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 28.08.2012 is as under: 3 “As the appointments made pursuant to this illegal process adopted by the NTPC are not under challenge before this Court and those appointees are not even before this Court, it is wholly unnecessary for this Court to go into the validity of such appointments or interfere therewith. The grievance of the petitioners is only with regard to denial of their candidature on the ground that they failed to meet the minimum standard prescribed for the interview. This minimum standard or qualifying mark for the interview was patently illegal as it was introduced after the selection process had begun and as per K. MANJUSREE4, it is impermissible to change the rules of the game after it is played. The action of the NTPC in rejecting the candidature of the petitioners on the ground that they did not secure the minimum qualifying mark in the interview is therefore illegal. The NTPC shall re-consider the cases of the petitioners in the light of their performance in the written test and in the event they qualified in the written examination they shall be considered for appointment in the available vacancies of the posts to which they aspired for. The NTPC shall complete this exercise expeditiously and in any event, not later than two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.” 4. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that this Order dated 28.08.2012 had attained finality after the dismissal of the Writ Appeals and the SLP filed by the Respondent National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC). The Petitioners herein are ten in number. 5. The Respondent NTPC has filed Counter Affidavit stating that in compliance with the Order of this Court, the candidature of the Petitioners herein was considered. It is contended that, under each category, the Petitioners herein secured the marks which are less than the cut-off marks, by which the other candidates could successfully get selected for the post under the respective categories. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents has submitted a table indicating the name of the Petitioner, the category under which the Petitioner participated in the selection process, the marks secured by the Petitioner, the cut-off marks in merit by which the last successful candidate came to be qualified and the discipline for which, each of the Petitioners had applied. Such table is usefully reproduced hereunder: 4 Sl.no. Name Categor y Marks secured Cut-of Marks in Merit List Disciplin e 1. Lalam Chinna Appala Naidu OBC 28 39 Artisan Trainee (Mech) 2. Gunda Narsinga Rao GEN 37 43 Artisan Trainee (Mech) 3. Motturu China Satya Rao OBC 27 39 Artisan Trainee (Mech) 4. Boddu Trinadha Rao OBC 36 42 Artisan Trainee (Elec) 5. Buruda Appala Raju OBC 31 42 Artisan Trainee (Elec) 6. Korupolu Muthyala Naidu OBC 33 42 Artisan Trainee (Elec) 7. Busa Appala Raju GEN 34 46 Artisan Trainee (Elec) 8. Karri Venkata Rao OBC 35 39 Artisan Trainee (Mech) 9. Korupulu Appala Naidu OBC 37 42 Artisan Trainee (Elec) 10. Cheepurupalli Sithayya OBC 37 39 Artisan Trainee (Mech) 6. The above table would clearly indicate that the Petitioners, under their respective categories, have secured such marks that are certainly below the cut-off marks by which the last successful candidate had secured. For the purpose of illustration, the case of Petitioner No.1 (in Sl.No.1) herein is considered. The Petitioner No.1 (in Sl.No.1) belongs to the category of OBC 5 and has secured 28 marks, whereas, the last successful candidate under the OBC category for the Artisan Trainee (Mechanical) discipline secured 39 marks. This illustration would clearly show that there is a difference of about 11 marks secured by the Petitioner No.1 and the cut-off marks secured by the last selected candidate. 7. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the Official Respondents have considered the case of the Petitioners, but unfortunately, they secured less marks than the marks secured by the last successful candidate. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Respondents have violated the Order of this Court in any manner. Therefore, there is no merit in the Contempt Case. Accordingly, this Contempt Case is dismissed. 8. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. _________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt:01.09.2025 Vns