Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 273 (AP)

Bhavani Rajasekhar v. Muddada Ravichandra

2023-02-02

BATTU DEVANAND

body2023
ORDER : 1. This Contempt Case has been filed complaining willful disobedience in implementing the Order dated 29.01.2020 passed by this Court in W.P.No.1460 of 2020. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the material available on record. 3. The petitioner herein filed W.P.No.1460 of 2020 before this Court to declare the action of the respondents in not considering the candidature of the petitioner for the post of Post of Principal Grade-II on the ground that he has not fulfilled criteria prescribed under the Notification No.1 of 2019 as arbitrary, illegal and discriminatory and consequently direct the respondents to consider his case for the post of the Principal Grade-II in the 2nd respondent Society. 4. This Court, while disposing of the said Writ Petition, passed the following Order on 29-01-2020 : “Hence, In view of the above circumstances, the second respondent is directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner for the post of Principal Grade-II if there is any vacancy and if not in future vacancies. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after receipt of the copy of the Order in W.P.No.1460 of 2020, he made a representation to the respondent No.2 to consider the candidature of the petitioner for promotion for the post of Principal Grade-II. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent passed Order vide Proceedings Lr.Rc.No.HR/1010/2019, dated 14.03.2020, rejecting his application on the ground that as per the documents submitted by him, he has been working as TGT Physical Science on regular basis and working against J.L. Physics in APSWREIS, which is not equivalent to regular J.L.Post and that he was originally appointed as TGT but not as Junior Lecturer in Physics and therefore, he is not qualified for applying to the post of Principal Grade-II as per the Notification. In the said communication the 2nd respondent stated that some posts are left unfilled as eligible candidates are not available and that those vacancies cannot be filled up by ineligible candidates. Learned counsel contends that this Court in categorical terms observed that it is clear from the notification that only experience „as Junior Lecturer? is required but not working in the said post by virtue of a promotion and accordingly negative the contention of the respondents and directed the respondent No.2 to consider the candidature of the petitioner for the post of Principal Grade-II. is required but not working in the said post by virtue of a promotion and accordingly negative the contention of the respondents and directed the respondent No.2 to consider the candidature of the petitioner for the post of Principal Grade-II. Therefore, rejection of his representation submitted in the light of the Orders of this Court is clearly amounts to Contempt of Court. It seems, the respondents have no intention to implement the orders of this Court and they are deliberately flouting the orders of this Court on one pretext or the other. The failure on the part of the respondents in implementing the orders of this Court would amount to disobedience of the orders of this Hon?ble Court and, therefore, they are liable for punishment under Sections of 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act. Complaining the same, the petitioner has filed the present Contempt Case. 6. Respondent No.1 filed Counter Affidavit contending that the role of the Principal Secretary in the present recruitment is very less and in fact the Society will complete the total selection process and finalize the merit list and issue the appointment orders to the successful candidates and the same file routinely circulated to this Respondent. 7. Respondent No.2 filed Counter Affidavit contending that the petitioner is not eligible even for application for the post of Principal Grade-II unless the petitioner was promoted as Post Graduate Teacher. As of now, the petitioner has been working as Trained Graduate Teacher and therefore, the petitioner is not eligible for making an application to the post of the Principal Grade-II. As per the Notification No.1 of 2019, a Trained Graduate Teacher cannot be promoted to the Junior Lecturer unless one should promoted as Post Graduate Teacher from Trained Graduate Teacher and then only, entitle for promotion to Junior Lecturer, and therefore, unless the petitioner got promotion as Junior Lecturer and got experience for three years, then only, the petitioner is entitled to make an application in the recruitment process under Notification No.1 of 2019 and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for appointment of the post of Principal Grade-II. As such, the representation of the petitioner was considered and rejected his candidature for the post of Principal Grade-II since a person, who is having total teaching experience of not less than 10 years including (a) three years of experience as PGT or JL in any Government/Government Aided School/Junior College is entitled to apply the said post. Though the petitioner have 10 years of teaching experience as Trained Graduate Teacher, he is not having three years of experience as PGT or JL and therefore, he is not entitled for the said post. Aggrieved by the Order passed by the Court in W.P.No.1460 of 2020, dated 29.01.2020, the respondents filed Writ Appeal vide AP/3/WA/9317/18-07- 2020 and it is pending for numbering. 8. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the record. 9. This Court by order dated 29.01.2020 directed the 2nd respondent to consider the candidature of the petitioner for the post of Principal Grade-II, if there is any vacancy, and if not in future vacancies, as the learned Standing Counsel submits that there are no vacancies. 10. It appears, along with the copy of the order of this Court, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 24.02.2020 to the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent vide Proceedings Lr.Rc.No.HR/1010/2019, dated 14.03.2020 rejected the representation of the petitioner dated 24.02.2020. 11. On careful examination of the proceedings dated 14.03.2020 of the 2nd respondent, it appears that raising same grounds which were raised by the 2nd respondent before this Court while arguing the writ petition that the petitioner was not eligible for promotion to the post of Principal Grade-II by considering his experience in the post of Junior Lecturer, which was negatived by this Court. 12. Considering the fact that the service of the petitioner is being used as Junior Lecturer since 26.07.2009 per the certificate dated 13.06.2019 issued by the Principal, APSWRS Jr. College for Boys, Sagileru, YSR Kadapa District, this Court categorically held that it is clear from the Notification that only experience as “Junior Lecturer” is required, but not working in the said post by virtue of a promotion and this Court in categorical terms held that the contention of the learned Standing Counsel that the petitioner is not promoted to the post of Junior Lecturer, to consider his experience, cannot be taken into consideration. 13. 13. As and when this Court in categorical terms held that the petitioner is having experience as per the Notification No.1/2019 and directed to consider his candidature for promotion to the post of Principal Grade-II, though the vacancies are available, rejecting the candidature of the petitioner is nothing but willful violation of the order of this Court. 14. For the above mentioned reasons, in the considered opinion of this Court, the 2nd respondent willfully disobeyed the order dated 29.01.2020 of this Court and thereby, he is found guilty of contempt. As such, he is liable for punishment under the provisions of Contempt of Court Act, 1971. 15. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is allowed and the Contemnor is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for four (04) weeks and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only), in default, he shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for seven days. 16. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed. 17. At request of the learned counsel appearing for the contemnor, the sentence is suspended for two (02) weeks.