APHC010492432018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3565] MONDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA CONTEMPT CASE NO: 1663/2018 Between: 1. SMT P SHAJIDA BEGUM, W/O SHAIK ABDUL RAHMAN, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O TELEPHONE EXCHANGE, BSNL, ULAPADU, PRAKASHAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. B V S T SAI, SECRETARY, AP PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, NAMPALLY, HYDERABAD 2. V N VISHNU, PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION DEPT, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, HYDERABAD. 3. B UDAYA LAKSHMI, SECRETARY, BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, NAMPALLY, HYDERABAD. 4. M KOTESHWAR RAO, JOINT DIRECTOR, BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, VELAGAPUI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P. ...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 the respondents herein and punish them under 2 Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act for willful disobedience of the order dt. 29.11.2017 of this Hon’ble Court in W.P. No. 19120 of 2017 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SUREPALLI MADHAVA RAO Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 1. The Court made the following: 3 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND & THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA CONTEMPT CASE No.1663 of 2018 ORDER:(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Battu Devanand) This Contempt Case has been filed complaining the willful disobedience of the respondents in implementing the order dated 29.11.2017 in W.P.No.19120 of 2017. 2. While allowing the said writ petition, the order of the Tribunal was set aside and a direction was issued to the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission to forward the name of the petitioner to the respondent Nos.2, 4 and 5 therein. The Public Service Commission was directed to send the same within two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. Thereafter, one of the said respondents namely, respondent Nos.2, 4 or 5, whoever is the appointing authority, was directed to issue an order of appointment within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a communication from the Public Service Commission. 3. During the course of hearing, Mr. Shaik Abdul Siddiq, learned counsel representing Mr. Surepalli Madhava Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner on record would submit that the order of the Court is complied with and as such, no further adjudication is required in the present case. 4 4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, we are of the considered view that the order of the Court has been complied with and no further adjudication is required in the present Contempt Case. 5. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed. 6. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND _______________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Date: 16.02.2026 PBS/SCS 5 69 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND & THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA CONTEMPT CASE No.1663 of 2018 Dt.16.02.2026 PBS/SCS