Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1307 (AP)

B. Sivananda v. Y. Sri Lakshmi

2023-09-15

K.MANMADHA RAO

body2023
ORDER : 1. This Contempt case has been filed to punish the contemnors/respondents under the provisions of Contempt of courts Act 1971 for violation of the orders and for not implementing the orders of this Court in W.P. No. 24217 of 2020 dated 13.07.2022. 2. Heard Sri J. Sravan Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri P. Gnana Teja, learned counsel and Sri G.V.S. Kishore Kumar, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 3. This Court, vide order, dated 13.07.2022, in W.P. No. 24217 of 2020, has disposed of the writ petition. The operative portion of the said order, reads as under: “..........this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner on par with the 4th respondent and effect notional promotion, if the petitioner is found otherwise eligible. No order as to costs.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, on receipt of the above order of this Court, the petitioner made a representation dated 11.08.2022 to the respondent authorities. But the respondent authorities neither considered nor passed any orders on the representation of the petitioner. Instead of abiding by the order passed by this Court, the respondents intentionally and deliberately avoid the orders for compliance and the action of the respondents is nothing but disobedience and amounts to contempt of courts and hence they are liable for punishment under contempt of court. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent has filed counter affidavit and denied all the allegations made in the petition. He further submits that the petitioner was under wrong notion that he is a senior to the 4th respondent for the reason that he was allotted less general number i.e. 658 than 4th respondent general number i.e. 1832. The petitioner suppressed the fact that date of birth and age was considered previously for fixing seniority of the PCs selected prior to 14.12.1999. Further, as per the criteria, the 4th respondent is senior to the petitioner throughout i.e. from 1990 to till the year 2010 and in view of the same the petitioner cannot be considered to that of 4th respondent. He further submits that as per the directions of this Court, the case of the petitioner is considered and found that he is not eligible for notional promotion on par with the 4th respondent. He further submits that as per the directions of this Court, the case of the petitioner is considered and found that he is not eligible for notional promotion on par with the 4th respondent. He further submits that after receiving the order of this Court, a detailed letter was sent to the DIG of police, Ananthapuramu, who in-turn has issued a Memorandum vide C. No. 329/C1/RO/2022, dated 29.03.2023 with a direction to prefer an appeal before this Court against the order passed in W.P. No. 24217 of 2020 and in the meantime the petitioner has filed the present contempt case. After perusal of the entire material speaking order was passed and hence there is delay in passing the speaking order and there is no disobedience of the orders of this Court. Basing on this ground the contempt case is not maintainable. 6. On a perusal of the speaking order issued by the Superintendent of Police, Ananthapuram, vide C. No. 262/ A1/2023, dated 31.07.2023, wherein it is mentioned that “during the year 2010 the provisional seniority list was prepared and objections were called from all the candidates, affected if any, however, this office did not receive any objections. Accordingly final seniority list was prepared and published on 26.10.2010, finalizing the seniority list as on 01.01.2010. At the time of preparation of list the 4th respondent was shown as serial No. 304 and the petitioner herein is at Serial No. 339 and the seniority list was prepared basing on the age. It is also mentioned that the petitioner was under wrong notion that he is a senior to the 4th respondent in W.P. No. 24217 of 2020 for the reason that he was allotted less general number i.e. 658 than Eswariah general number i.e. 1832. The petitioner suppressed the fact that date of birth and age was considered previously for fixing the seniority of the PCs selected prior to 14.12.1999. As per the criteria, the 4th respondent is senior to the petitioner throughout i.e. from 1990 to till the year 2010. In view of the same the case of the petitioner cannot be considered to that of 4th respondent on the directions of this Court passed in W.P. No. 21090 of 2019. As per the criteria, the 4th respondent is senior to the petitioner throughout i.e. from 1990 to till the year 2010. In view of the same the case of the petitioner cannot be considered to that of 4th respondent on the directions of this Court passed in W.P. No. 21090 of 2019. Accordingly the case of the petitioner is considered as per the directions of this Court in W.P. No. 24217 of 2020, dated 13.07.2022 and found that the petitioner is not eligible for notional promotion on part with the 4th respondent.” 7. In view of the above, this Court observed that the orders of this Court dated 13.07.2022 passed in W.P. No. 24217 of 2020 has already been complied with by the respondent authorities herein. Hence, no orders are required to be passed in the present contempt case and the same is liable to be closed. 8. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed. No order as to costs. If at all any grievance, the petitioner is at liberty to avail the remedy available to him under law. 9. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.