Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1097 (TS)

T. Gopal v. Musharaff Ali Faruqui

2025-09-24

T.MADHAVI DEVI

body2025
ORDER: T.MADHAVI DEVI, J. This Contempt Case is filed alleging wilful and deliberate disobedience of the directions of this Court in W.P.No.26676 of 2021, dated 03.06.2024 and is seeking punishment for the said disobedience under the Contempt of Courts Act and to pass such other order or orders in the interest of justice. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had challenged the action of the respondent No.4 in not considering the petitioner for the post of Junior Assistant-cum-Computer Operator by implementing the Presidential order for the notified posts in the notification No.3 of 2019, dated 28.09.2019 as illegal and arbitrary. This Court had allowed the writ petition directing the respondents to consider and issue appointment orders to the petitioner herein according to his merit and without reference to the Presidential Order issued by the respondent No.1 with all consequential benefits. He submitted that though the petitioner was more meritorious than other candidates appointed in Sangareddy District, his case has not been considered for appointment and therefore, the present Contempt Case has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has relied upon the averments in the counter affidavit stating that aggrieved by the order of this Court in W.P.No.26676 of 2021, a Writ Appeal in W.A.No.1127 of 2024 was filed and the Division Bench of this Court, vide order dated 21.11.2024, disposed of the same, directing the appellants therein to consider the case of the respondent No.1 therein for the post of Junior Assistant-cum-Computer Operator against the unfilled vacancy, if any. It is submitted that, thereafter, the case of the petitioner has been considered as per his online application and it was observed that all the vacancies which were notified in the Sangareddy circle, for which the writ petitioner is eligible, have been filled up. It is submitted that the writ petitioner has secured 56 marks and has secured 18 th rank in Sangareddy District and 30 vacancies have been notified, out of which the writ petitioner is eligible to be considered in 14 vacancies of OC and 2 vacancies of the ST community and out of 2 vacancies earmarked for the ST community, one vacancy is reserved for ST(W) and the other ST vacancy was also filled up by one Taravath Nagaraju. It is also stated that all the ‘OC’ vacancies were filled up and there are no unfilled vacancies available to consider the candidature of the writ petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner was issued the speaking orders dated 29.03.2025. It is stated that the respondents have not deviated or disobeyed the directions of this court and that the orders of this Court have been complied with and he also tendered an unconditional apology for the lapses, if any, in complying with the orders of this Court. Along with the counter affidavit is filed the copy of the order of Writ Appeal in W.A.No.1127 of 2024, dated 21.11.2024 and also the Speaking Order dated 29.03.2025. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that there is wilful disobedience on the part of the respondents and he has drawn the attention of this Court to the interim order of this Court dated 04.04.2022, observing that any appointment made shall be subject to the further orders of this Court and also the order dated 22.04.2022 directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to undergo the proficiency test in computers and that the petitioner shall however not claim any equities. Thus, according to him, the appointments made during the pendency of the writ petition were subject to the outcome of the writ petition and the writ petition was ultimately allowed and in order to do complete justice to the petitioner, the respondents ought to have considered his case for appointment since he is more meritorious and has secured more marks than the persons who were appointed under the ‘ST’ quota. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner secured more marks than any of the persons who have been appointed in Sangareddy District. Therefore, the learned standing counsel for the respondents was directed to produce the details of all the candidates who have been appointed in Sanga Reddy District and accordingly, the list has been furnished and on perusal of the same, it is noticed that no ‘OC’ candidate who has secured lesser marks than the petitioner has been appointed and the petitioner could have thus been considered only against ST(G) vacancy against which one Taravath Nagaraju has been appointed. 6. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon Rule 27 of the Telangana High Court Rules to submit that in order to do complete justice to the petitioner, this Court can pass any orders in the Contempt Case as well. He relied upon the orders of this Court in L.P.A.No.1 of 2020, dated 02.03.2020, wherein the said Rule has been considered and it has been observed thus: 11. This Rule 27 is specific to the State of Andhra Pradesh (now Telangana). Hence, the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied by the appellant are not applicable to the facts of the present case. Even in the absence of this specific Rule, it is trite to state that the High Court does have the power to pass orders in the interest of justice. 15. This Division Bench in C.A.No.51 of 2019 (Ch.Sudhakar Raju v. M. Ramadevi (Died per L.rs.) and others), dated 13.11.2019, has held as under:- This Court has ample power to see that the orders passed by the Court are implemented in its true letter and spirit and to do justice to the parties. No person or authority can cause any obstruction or an impediment be allowed which will result in tampering with the administration of justice. 16. In view of the above law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as Rule 27 of the Rules of High Court of Andhra Pradesh, this Court has ample power to see that the orders passed by the Court are implemented in true letter and spirit and do complete justice to the parties. The learned Single Judge was legally justified in directing the official respondents to dispose of the application pending before them under B.R.S. And the appellants cannot be aggrieved by the said direction. 7. Thus, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, in order to do complete justice, this Court should interfere and pass orders directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner to one of the post of Junior Assistant-cum-Computer Operator in Sanga Reddy District. 8. 7. Thus, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, in order to do complete justice, this Court should interfere and pass orders directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner to one of the post of Junior Assistant-cum-Computer Operator in Sanga Reddy District. 8. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents/ contemnors, on the other hand, relied upon the order of this Court in W.P.No.15597 of 2020 and batch, wherein a similar issue has been considered in detail and at Para 41 thereof, it was observed that only in the left over vacancies and vacancies which were reserved for the successful candidates as directed by the Court, the respondents were directed to consider for appointment as Junior Linemen on the basis of their merit and rule of social reservation subject to their qualifying in the pole climbing test irrespective of their local area. It is submitted that, in this writ petition also the issue is covered by the decision of this Court in the batch of writ petitions in W.P.No.15597 of 2020 dated 29.02.2024 and therefore, there was a direction to consider the case of the petitioner also for appointment in accordance with his merit. He also referred to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal that his case shall be considered only against the unfilled vacancies and as there were no unfilled vacancies, the petitioner could not be considered for appointment. Therefore, according to him, there is no Contempt of Court committed by the respondent Corporation. 9. Further, he relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kunhayammed and Others Vs. State of Kerala and Others , [ (2000) 6 SCC 359 ] for the proposition that when the Single Judges’ order has been modified by the order of the Division Bench, then, it is the order of the Division Bench which is surviving and the order of Single Judge gets subsumed thereunder and if at all the petitioner is aggrieved, he should file a Contempt Case before the Division Bench. For the very same proposition, he placed reliance upon the order of this Court in W.A.M.P.No.423 of 2013, dated 14.02.2013 in W.A.No.48 of 2013. Further, he placed reliance upon the decision of the three Judge Bench of Calcutta High Court in the case of Sailesh Kumar Vs. For the very same proposition, he placed reliance upon the order of this Court in W.A.M.P.No.423 of 2013, dated 14.02.2013 in W.A.No.48 of 2013. Further, he placed reliance upon the decision of the three Judge Bench of Calcutta High Court in the case of Sailesh Kumar Vs. Smitha.R. and Another , [2023 SCC OnLine Cal 1152] , for the proposition that where the Single Judges’ order is confirmed by the Division Bench, then the Contempt Case would lie for non-compliance of the Single Judges’ order, but in any other case of modification or cancellation, it gets subsumed in the order in Writ Appeal. 10. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner was protected by the order that any appointment would be subject to the outcome of the writ petition and thereafter, the writ petition was allowed, directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on the basis of his merit. However, the respondents have filed a Writ Appeal before this court and the Division Bench had directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner against the unfilled vacancies. The order of this Court has thus got subsumed in the order of the Division Bench in the Writ Appeal. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim appointment on the basis of the order of this Court alone. Further, as contended by the learned counsel for the respondents, where a single Judge’s order has been modified by the Division Bench, it is the order of the Division Bench which is surviving and if the petitioner is aggrieved, he should file contempt case before the Division Bench and its only where the order of the Single Judge is confirmed by the Division Bench, that the Contempt Case would lie before the Single Judge. Further, the interim orders of this Court would be applicable only during the pendency of the writ petition and would lapse as soon as the final orders are passed. 11. In this case, since the final order of this Court got subsumed in the order of the Division Bench, this Court is of the opinion that the Contempt Case cannot be adjudicated by this Court at this stage. 12. The Contempt Case is accordingly closed.