Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 54722 (AP)

S.Krishna Rao, v. D.Mariyanna,

CC/1037/2025 · 2025-11-06

Challa Gunaranjan

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010200022025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI CONTEMPT CASE NO: 1037 of 2025 Bench Sr.No:-1 [3506] S.Krishna Rao ...Petitioner Vs. D. Mariyanna ...Contemnor ********** Advocate for Petitioner: Mr. P. V. Ramana Advocate for Contemnor: Mr. Mannam Venkata Krishna Rao CORAM : SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 7th November, 2025. ORDER: The present Contempt Case has been filed alleging willful disobedience on the part of the respondent in complying with the order dated 04.03.2025, passed in W.P.No.5402 of 2025. 2. Pursuant to the earlier order, dated 10.10.2025, respondent is present in person, today. 3. The respondent has filed counter-affidavit, dated 06.11.2025, along with memo dated 04.11.2025, issued by Engineer-in-Chief (FAC), wherein inter alia it is stated that pursuant to the final report of the District Medical Board, GGH, Ananthapuramu, dated 29.10.2025, the Disability Certificate submitted by the petitioner was found to be genuine and valid and that the case of the petitioner would be considered for promotion for the post of Executive 2 CGRJ CC_1037_2025 Engineer as per the seniority among the other eligible Physically Handicapped (VH/HH/OH) candidates for the panel year 2025-26. It is also stated that as per the said final report, the petitioner continues to suffer from 40% blindness. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner although stated that petitioner’s case ought to have been considered for the panel year 2024-25 and not for the subsequent year, the interim order passed by this Court was merely directing the respondents to consider the case of petitioner under PH Quota, having referred to his eligibility, and the same did not deal with the year for which he should have been considered. 5. Be that as it may, this Contempt Case is closed. Leaving the issue as to whether the case of the petitioner be considered for the panel year 2024-25 or 2025-26, open for him to agitate in either the pending Writ Petition or by initiating appropriate proceedings, if so advised. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, in this case, shall stand closed. CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J. SSN