APHC010412692024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CONTEMPT CASE NO: 3737/2024 Between: 1. JAKKAM SRINIVASULU, S/O. LATE RAJU, AGE 54 YEARS, OCC FOREST BEAT OFFICER, O/O. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (PROJECT TIGER), GIDDALUR, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1. G ANANTHA RAMULU, PRINCIPAL SECRETARY-CUM- SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. MR CHIRANJEEVI CHOWDARI, PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, ARANYA BHAVAN, MANGALAGIRI, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. MR G SRINIVASULU, DISTRICT FOREST OFFICER, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, PRAKASAM DIVISION AT ONGOLE, DISTRICT FOREST OFFICE, TERRITORIAL DIVISION, SANKSHEMA COMPLEX, SOUTH BYPASS ROAD, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-523 001. p. 2 ...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 summon and punish the respondents U/Secs.10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act for their willful disobedience towards the interim order dt.29-08-2024 passed by this Hon'ble Court in WP No.19007 of 2024 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PEETA RAMAN Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 1. G RAJU The Court made the following: ORDER Heard Sri Peeta Raman, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.S.Manidhar Pingali, learned counsel representing Sri G.Raju, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The above contempt case was filed complaining violation of interim order dated 29.08.2024 in W.P.No.19007 of 2024. 3. The petitioner filed the aforementioned writ petition to declare the action of 3rd respondent in not considering his candidature for promotion to the post of Forest Section Officer, as illegal and arbitrary. 4. An interim order was granted on 29.08.2024 directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion, if the petitioner is in zone of consideration, as per the Rules. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the present contempt case on 20.09.2024. p. 3 5. In the affidavit filed in support of the contempt case, it was pleaded that the 3rd respondent promoted juniors to the petitioner vide Rc.No.823/2024/T1, dated 31.08.2024 (S.O.No.24/2024/T1) ignoring the petitioner’s candidature. 6. Sri Peeta Raman, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the proceedings itself amounts to contempt and hence, the respondents are liable to be punished. 7. Sri R.S.Manidhar Pingali, learned counsel representing Sri G.Raju, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that though the petitioner is the zone of consideration, his case was not recommended for promotion for the post of Forest Section Officer, during the panel year 2023-2024 due to AOC pending against him. He would also submit that a speaking order issued by the 3rd respondent on 31.08.2024 and the petitioner filed writ petition assailing the said order. The petitioner also filed writ appeal, complaining non-granting of an interim order in the said writ petition. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner endorses the submission of learned counsel for the respondents regarding filing of writ petition assailing the proceedings Rc.No.823/2024/T1, dated 31.08.2024 and also intra-court appeal. However, he would contend that the promotion post is non-selection post and hence, pendency of departmental proceedings will not come in the way of petitioner’s entitlement for promotion. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would contend that the authority called for the record sheets in terms of Rule 6(i) of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 and p. 4 thereafter the order was passed and hence, the authority did not violate the interim order. 10. As seen from the material available on record, this Court while granting interim order, directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner, if the petitioner’s case is in the zone of consideration. A speaking order was passed by the 3rd respondent vide Rc.No.823/2024/T1, dated 31.08.2024 (S.O.No.24/2024/T1) and the petitioner challenged the same by filing separate writ petition. In fact, the petitioner also filed intra-Court appeal, since no interim order was passed in the said writ petition. 11. Given the speaking order dated 31.08.2024, this Court is of the considered opinion that the respondents have not violated the interim order and hence, the contempt case is liable to be dismissed. 12. In J.S.Parihar Vs. Ganpat Duggar and Others 1, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed thus: “….once there is an order passed by the Government on the basis of the directions issued by the Court, there arises a fresh cause of action to seek redressal in an appropriate forum. The preparation of the seniority list may be wrong or may be right or may or may not be in conformity with the directions. But that would be a fresh cause of action for the aggrieved party to avail of the opportunity of judicial review. But that cannot be considered to be the willful violation of the order. After re-exercising the judicial review in contempt proceedings, afresh direction by the learned Single Judge cannot be given to redraw the seniority list. In other words, the learned Judge was exercising the jurisdiction to consider the matter on merits in the p. 5 1 (1996) 6 SCC 291 contempt proceedings. It would not be permissible under Section 12 of the Act.” 10. 13. Thus, as seen from the expression of the Hon’ble Apex Court, since a speaking order dated 32.08.2024 was passed and the petitioner filed another writ petition, this Court does not find any violation of interim order passed by this Court. 14. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is Dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI PVD