A.P. Choudhary & 3 Others Vs v.Sudhaker Rao — Contempt of Court | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

A.P. Choudhary & 3 Others Vs v.Sudhaker Rao — Contempt of Court | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Both contempt appeals (Nos. 5 and 6 of 2012) allowed, the Court having held that no contempt was committed by the appellants; pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in the contempt appeals shall stand closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellants committed contempt of the direction in the common judgment dated 02.09.2011 in W.P.Nos. 13434 and 13485 of 2011 by not including the names of the respondents in the shortlist of candidates called for interview. +1 more

Court's answer

No act of contempt was committed by the appellants; on the other hand, the appellants strictly complied with this Court's orders and acted accordingly.

Ratio / Principle

It was not in dispute that the respondents were not shortlisted for the interview solely because of their ranking in the merit list (they stood at S.Nos. 134 and 353 in the overall ranking, with 95 candidates shortlisted per merit), and therefore the appellants' compliance with the writ directions did not constitute contempt.

Key takeaways

Since no act of contempt was committed by the appellants, the contempt appeals are allowed.ratio¶80

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Contempt of Courts Act, S.19 — Contempt Appeals Nos. 5 and 6 of 2012 against order dated 10.04.2012 in Contempt Case Nos. 1791 and 1792 of 2011 by which the learned Single Judge, having found the officials of Visakhapatnam Steel Project prima facie guilty of contempt, directed them to appear on 20.04.2012 with liberty to purge the contempt by offering employment — Pursuant to the common judgment dated 02.09.2011 in W.P.Nos. 13434 and 13485 of 2011, the appellants permitted the respondents to participate in the March 2011 selection for 25 posts of Assistant Store Keeper; the respondents stood at S.Nos. 134 and 353 in the overall ranking and were not shortlisted for interview, the examining agency having shortlisted 95 candidates on merit — Held, it was not in dispute that the respondents were not shortlisted only because of their merit ranking; the appellants strictly complied with the Court's orders and no act of contempt was committed; contempt appeals allowed and pending miscellaneous petitions closed (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Harinath. N; bench comprising Justice R Raghunandan Rao and Justice Harinath. N; decision dated 11-02-2025).

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

TUESDAY ,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO

AND

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N

CONTEMPT APPEAL Nos. 5 and 6 of 2012

CONTEMPT APPEAL NO: 5 OF 2012

Appeal under Section 19 of Contempt of Courts Act, against the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 10-04-2012 in Contempt Case No.1792 of 2011.

Between:

Sri A.P.Choudhary, Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Visakhapatnam Steel Project, Visakhapatnam.

Sri P.M.G.Krishna, General Manager (per), Visakhapatnam Steel Project, Visakhapatnam.

Sri R.V.Rao, Dy. Manager (per) Visakhapatnam Steel Project, Visakhapatnam.

Sri K.Saha, Asst. General Manager (per) Visakhapatnam Steel Project, Visakhapatnam.

...Appellants

AND

M.Chinna Rao, S/o Late Appa Rao, C/o B.Mohan Rao, R/o^D.No.31-24-2 Bharath Nagar, ITI Road, Kurmannapalem, Visakhapatnam^-46.

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2012(APPL. NO: 429 OF 2012)

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition,^{theHighCourtmaybe} pleased to stay all further proceedings before the learned Judge in Contempt Case No. 1792 of 2011.

Counsel for the Appellants : Sri V.Subrahmanyam

Counsel for the Respondent: Smt Nimmagadda Revathi

CONTEMPT APPEAL NO: 6 OF 2012

Appeal under Section 19 of Contempt of Courts Act,^aggrievedby order passed by the learned Single Judge on 10.04.2012 in contempt case.No.1791 of 2011.

Between:

A.P. Choudhary, Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Visakhapatnam Steel Project, Visakhapatnam.

Sri P.M.G.Krishna, General Manager (per) Visakhapatnam Steel Project, Visakhapatnam.

Sri R.V.Rao, Dy. Managerr (per) Visakhapatnam Steel Project, Visakhapatnam.

Sri K.Saha, Asst. General Manager (per) Visakhapatnam^{SteelProject,} Visakhapatnam.

...Appellants

AND

V.Sudhaker Rao, S/o Late Appa Rao, C/o Eswara Rao, R/o D.No.30-28-9, Lakshmipuram RH Colony, Vadlapudi-Post, Visakhapatnam^-46.

...Respondent

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2012fAPPL. NO: 430 OF 2012)

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings before the learned Judge in Contempt Case No.1791 of 2011

Counsel for the Appellants : Sri V.Subrahmanyam

Counsel for the Respondent: Smt Nimmagadda Revathi

The Court made the following Common Judgment:

V

APHC010100722012

I

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3488]

TUESDAY ,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CONTEMPT APPEAL NO: 5/2012

Between: ...APPLICANT{S) A.p choudhary & 3 Others and Others AND ...RESPONDENT

M Chinna Rao Counsel for the Applicant(S); V SUBRAHMANYAM Counsel for the Respondent: K SARVA BHOUMA RAO

APHC010057292012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3488]

TUESDAY ,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CONTEMPT APPEAL NO: 6/2012

Between: A.p- Choudhary & 3 Others and Others AND

V Sudhaker Rao Counsel for the Applicant(S): 1.V SUBRAHMANYAM

...APPLICANT(S)

...RESPONDENT

Counsel for the Respondent:

NIMMAGADDA REVATHI The Court made the following Common Judgment: (Per Hon 'ble Sri Justice Harinath. N) 1. The contempt appeals are filed aggrieved by the^orderspassed

in Contempt Case Nos.1791 and 1792 of 2011, whereby the learned Single Judge of this Court, vide order dated^10.04.2012,

directed the respondents to be present before the Court on

II2II

CA.Nos.5 and 6 of 2012

20.04.2012 after having found them prima facie guilty of contempt of Court. However, the respondents were given an opportunity to purge the contempt by offering employment^tothe petitioners.

The appellants had issued a notification for filling up the posts of Assistant Store Keeper. The respondents underwent the selection process in 1991 but were not appointed. The respondents filed WP.No.844 of 1996, the learned Single Judge vide order dated 29.08.1997 directed the respondents^thereinto consider the case of the petitioners therein for appointment as Assistant Store Keepers as and when suitable vacancies arise in future and that the petitioner shall be subjected to the selection procedure, if any, which is already invoke, and not created specially for the petitioners.

The appellants issued a notification in March 2011 for filling up 25 posts of Assistant Store Keepers. The respondents were informed that they were not eligible for selection as they had surpassed the age limit. Aggrieved by the letter, the respondents filed for WP.Nos. 13434 and 13485 of 2011. The writ petitions were allowed by a common judgment dated 02.09.2011,^andthe respondents therein were directed to treat the petitioners as

\ \

//3//

CA.Nos.5and6of 2012

% ■V

within the age limit and to consider the cases of the petitioners

therein on par with other applicants.

The respondents were permitted to participate in^theselection process and were placed at S.No.134 and 353 in the^overall ranking. The screening test was conducted in a fair and transparent manner, and as only 25 posts were notified, the respondents did not qualify for the interview. The agency that conducted the examination shortlisted 95 candidates for further selection by attending the interview.

The respondents were aggrieved by the appellants'^actsinnot including the names of the respondents in the shortlisted candidates for attending the interview and filed contempt^cases. The learned Single Judge issued the impugned order,^which is under challenge in the contempt appeals.

The learned Single Judge, while disposing of the writ petitions 13434 and 13485 of 2011 vide a common judgment dated 02.09.2011, only directed the respondents therein to^treatthe petitioners as within the age limit concerning the notification issued in March 2011 and consider their cases for selection along with other candidates. It was made clear in the^orderthatif the selection process has been completed, a separate process

//4//

CA.Nos.5 and 6 of 2012

shall be undertaken for the petitioners within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the order.

It is not in dispute that the respondents underwent the selection process along with other applicants. It is also not in dispute that the respondents were not shortlisted for attending interviews because of their ranking in the merit list. The respondents stood at S.Nos.134 and 353 in the overall ranking. It is also not in dispute that the agency that conducted the examination

shortlisted 95 candidates as per their merit to attend the

interview. When the respondents were found not eligible in the selection process, they could not have suppressed and filed

Contempt Case Nos. 1791 and 1792 of 2011.

In the considered opinion of this Court, no act of contempt was committed by the appellants. On the other hand, the appellants strictly complied with this Court's orders and acted accordingly. As no act(s) of contempt is committed by the appellants, the contempt appeals are allowed.

As a sequel pending miscellaneous petitions, if any in this contempt appeals shall stand closed

Sd/- S.V.S.R.MURTHY JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ' SECT ON OFFICER

To,

The Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Andhra Pradesh^{atAmaravathi.}

%

V.Sudhaker Rao, S/o Late Appa Rao, C/o Eswara Rao, R/o D.No. 30-28-9, Lakshmipuram RH Colony, Vadlapudi-Post, Visakhapatnam 46.

M.Chinna Rao, S/o Late Appa Rao, C/o B.Mohan Rao R/o D.No.31-242, Bharath Nagar, ITI Road, Kurmannapalem, Visakhapatnam -46.

One CC to Sri K Sarva Bhouma Rao Advocate [OPUC]

One CC to Sri V. Subramanyam, Advocate.[OPUC]

One CC to Smt. Nimmagadda Revathi Advocate [OPUC]

Three CD Copies

Stu

vna

ss

HIGH COURT

DATED: 11/02/2025

COMMON JUDGMENT

CA.Nos.5 and 6 of 2012

ALLOWING THE CONTEMPT APPEALS