APHC010610252023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] TUESDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CONTEMPT CASE NO: 6441/2023 Between: 1.JAGANA APPALA NAIDU, S/O. J. SATYANARAYANA, AGED 46 YEARS, OCC FORMERLY CONTRACT LECTURER, R/O. ARIKA THOTA VILLAGE AND POST, RAMABHADRAPURAM MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1.PRAVEEN PRAKASH IAS, PRINCIPAL SECRETAIY, SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH. 2.SAURABH GAUR, COMMISSIONER, INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION, TADEPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH. 3.ISLAVATH SARADA, REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR, BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, RAJAHMUNDRY, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH. 4.DONGA MANJULA VEENA, DISTRICT VOCATIONAL EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PARVATHIPURAM MANYAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...CONTEMNOR(S): 2 The court made the following ORDER: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This contempt case is filed against the respondents for wilful disobedience of the orders dated 03.10.2023 passed by this Court in W.P. No. 25192 of 2023. This Court specifically directed the 2nd respondent as follows: Having heard the submissions made by both the learned counsel, this court is of the considered view that the present writ petition can be disposed of without touching the merits of the case, by directing the 2nd respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for re- engaging his service as contract faculty with reference to proceedings issued in Memo dated 12.09.2023 issued by the 1st respondent within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. 3. However, the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have not complied with the said direction of this court and also failed to reinstate the petitioner as ordered by this Court with reference to Memo dated 12.09.2023. Hence, the action of the respondents amounts to violation and disobedience of the orders of this Court 03.10.2023 in W.P. No. 25192 of 2023. Hence, the present contempt petition filed. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 1st and 2nd respondents filed counter affidavit, wherein it is stated that, as 3 directed by this Court vide order dated 03.10.2023, the respondents No.1 and 2 considered the claim of the petitioner for reinstatement/re- engagement of his service. However, for the reasons mentioned in the impugned proceedings/speaking order dated 21.11.2023 passed by the 2nd respondent, and in view of the cancellation of the earlier Memo dated 21.07.2021, the said request could not be acted upon. Consequently, the service of the petitioner was not resumed, since the reinstatement was found not feasible. 5. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents, and on perusal of the material available on record, it is evident that this Court clearly directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for re-engagement/reinstatement of his service with reference to Memo dated 12.09.2023, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Therefore, it is clear that this Court had specifically directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for re-engagement of his services in terms of the said Memo dated 12.09.2023. As contended by the learned counsel for the respondents, on perusal of the counter affidavit as well as the speaking order dated 4 21.11.2023 passed by the 2nd respondent, it is clearly and categorically stated as follows: “Further, government have issued orders in memo No.1054962/IE-A1/2019-4, dated 27.01.2023, duly restoring the earlier orders issued in government memo No.1054962/IE-A1/2019-3, dated 21.07.2021 to re-engage 46 contract faculty who are considered in the earlier memos as mentioned above and directed to adjust them in the existing vacancies of the government junior colleges in their respective zones, subject to condition that the contract will be terminated as and when regular recruitment is taken up. Government orders for re- engagement of contract faculty is limited to 46 persons only whose names are included in the list”. 6. The learned counsel further submits that the re-engagement of services, as per Memo dated 12.09.2023, pertains only to 46 members, and the petitioner herein is not included among those 46 individuals enlisted, which is annexed to the said Memo. In view of the fact that the direct recruitment has since been undertaken and re- engagement of the petitioner’s services is not permissible and cannot be construed as contempt. 7. In view of the specific reasons stated for non-engagement of the petitioner’s services, it is evident that the case of the petitioner has been duly considered as directed by this Court. It is a well-settled 5 principle of law that, to hold a party guilty of contempt, the Court must examine whether the respondents have willfully disobeyed or intentionally violated the orders of the Court. In the present case, there is nothing on record to indicate any deliberate violation on the part of the respondents. Since the respondents have considered the petitioner’s case and have assigned valid reasons for non- engagement in view of the ongoing recruitment process. Therefore, this Court is inclined to hold that there is neither any deliberate violation nor disobedience on the part of the respondents, more so as the respondents have considered the claim of the petitioner and passed a speaking order with sound reasons. Hence, there is no guilt on the part of the respondents as explained under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Accordingly, no further orders are necessary in this contempt petition. The contempt case is, therefore, closed. No order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the contempt case shall stand closed. _________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 23.09.2025 klk klk 6 723 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA (closed) Contempt Case No.6441 of 2023 23.09.2025 klk klk 7