APHC010342932024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] TUESDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CONTEMPT CASE NO: 3375/2024 Between: 1. THOKA MADAN MOHAN RAO,, S/O LATE THOKA APPARAO, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCC- SCHOOL ASSISTANT MATHS PRESENTLY WORKING AT Z.P. HIGH SCHOOL HASSANABADA VILLAGE, KROSURU MANDAL PALANADU DISTRICT. 2. ZAKIR HUSSAIN SHAIK,, S/O ADAM SAHEB , AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS , OCC- SCHOOL ASSISTANT MATHS PRESENTLY WORKING AT ZPHS, BOLLAVARAM MUPPALLA MANDAL PALANADU DISTRICT. 3. KONDURU VEERASWAMY, S/O ANJANEYULU, AGED 53 YEARS, OCC - SCHOOL ASSISTANT MATHS PRESENTLY WORKING AT Z P HIGH SCHOOL VANKAYALAPADU VILLAGE EDIAPADU MANDAL PALANADU DISTRICT. 4. CHINNABATHUNI BALA SHOWRAIAH, S/O RAYANNA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS OCC SCHOOL ASSISTANT MATHS PRESENTLY WORKING AT Z P HIGH SCHOOL BHRUGUBANDA VILLAGE, SATTENAPALLI MANDAL, PALANADU DISTRICT 5. SANGEPU SRINADH, S/OVENKATESWARA RAO AGED 52 YEARS, OCC SCHOOL ASSISTANT PHYSICAL SCIENCE PRESENTLY WORKING AT Z P HIGH SCHOOL KROSURU VILLAGE, PALANADU DISTRICT. 6. MANCHALA MADHURI PRABHA, W/O T MADAN MOHAN, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC SCHOOL ASSISTANTMATHS PRESENTLY WORKING AT Z P HIGH SCHOOL RENTAPALLA VILLAGE, 2 SATTENAPALLI MANDAL, PALANADU DISTRICT. 7. GOLLAPALLI SRINIVASA RAO, S/O LAKSHMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCC SCHOOL ASSISTANT MATHS PRESENTLY WORKING AT Z P HIGH SCHOOL SS THALIURU VILLAGE, KROSURU MANDAL, PALANADU DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. SRI KONA SASIDHAR I A S, SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY, SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. S SURESH KUMAR I A S, COMMISSIONER OF SCHOOL EDUCATION GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, B BLOCK ANJANEYA TOWERS, IBRAHIMPAINAM VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH 3. B LINGESWAREDDY, THE REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT 4. P SAILAJA, THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER NARASARAOPET GUNTUR, PALNADU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH 5. M VENKATEWA RAO, DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER GUNTUR GUNTUR DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH. ...CONTEMNOR(S): 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 may be pleased to punish the respondents under Sec. 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act for willfully, wantonly, deliberately, violating and not implementing the orders of the Hon'ble High Court passed in W.P. No. 10959 of 2023 dated 05-05-2023 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. THOKA DEVA DEEPAK ANIRUDH YADAV Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 3 1. G RAJU The Court made the following: 4 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CONTEMPT CASE NO: 3375/2024 ORDER: This contempt case is filed against the respondents for willful disobedience of the orders dated 05.05.2023 passed by this Court in W.P.No.10959 of 2023. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners were selected as Secondary Grade Teachers in DSC 1994 and their services were regularized in the year 1995. He further submits that for promotion as school assistants, if the respondents had considered the merit list of DSC 1994 and DSC 1996, the petitioners would have been promoted as school assistants in the year 2002. But the candidatures of the petitioners were not considered for promotion as school assistants even in the year 2009, even though they are eligible in the year 2002 itself on the ground that the respondents followed the procedure as per merit-cum-roaster points system in promotions. Whileso, pursuant to the representation of the petitioners, respondent No.2 herein addressed a letter to respondent No.1 to formulate the policy for granting notional seniority to the petitioners from the date of their eligibility i.e., 2002. Even though, respondent No.2 requested respondent No.1 to make policy or to pass order, but respondent No.1 did not take any decision or pass any order. Hence, the writ Petition filed. In the said Writ Petition, this Court was pleased to pass an order dated 05.05.2023, which is extracted hereunder: 5 “Having heard the submissions made by both the learned counsels and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider the letter addressed by the 2nd respondent dated 10.07.2019, and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that even though this Court specifically directed respondent No.1 to consider the representation of petitioners for promotion and recitals of the letter addressed by respondent No.2 dated 10.07.2019 and to pass appropriate orders, but for one reason or the other, respondent No.1 passed a speaking order denying notional seniority of the petitioners, contrary to the requet made by respondent No.2. Hence, the Contempt Case. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents filed counter- affidavit of respondent No.4, wherein it is stated that pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.5 dated 14.02.2003, issued by respondent No.1, the promotions should be in accordance with merit-cum-roaster system. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for promotion purely on merit system as canvassed by them. The said G.O., was upheld by this Court as well as the Hon’ble Apex Court since then the said reservation/roaster point system are implementing even in promotions by considering the merit system. Therefore, respondent No.1 duly considered the representation of the petitioners and disposed of the same by passing a speaking 6 order dated 26.10.2024 by holding that the request of the petitioners was due from October, 2002 is contrary to the Rules and reservation in promotions was introduced by the Government of Andhra Pradesh vide G.O.Ms.No.5 dated 14.02.2003. It is further stated that since the Supreme Court also reiterated the policy of the Government issued under G.O.Ms.No.5 vide judgment dated 25.09.2006 in Civil Appeal No.6758 of 2000, as such the petitioners are not entitled for notional seniority basing upon merit list DSC 1994-1996. 6. In view of the above and in view of the policy of respondent No.1 and after having disposal of the representation of the petitioners as directed by this Court, no contempt case is made out against the respondents. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed. No order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the contempt case shall stand closed. ________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 09.12.2025 TTPPSS 7 95 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA (closed) CONTEMPT CASE NO: 3375/2024 09.12.2025 TTPPSS