A.P.Choudhary & 3 Others Vs M.Chinna Rao

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.

¶11

Between:

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

...Appellants

¶17

AND

¶18

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.

¶19

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

¶20

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.

¶21

Counsel for the Appellants : Sri V.Subrahmanyam

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent: Smt Nimmagadda Revathi

¶23

CONTEMPT APPEAL NO: 6 OF 2012

¶24

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.

¶25

Between:

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

...Appellants

¶31

AND

¶32

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.

¶33

...Respondent

¶34

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

¶35

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

¶36

Counsel for the Appellants : Sri V.Subrahmanyam

¶37

Counsel for the Respondent: Smt Nimmagadda Revathi

¶38

The Court made the following Common Judgment:

V

APHC010100722012

I

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

¶43

[3488]

¶44

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

¶45

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

¶46

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

¶47

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

¶48

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

¶49

[3488]

¶50

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

¶51

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

¶52

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

¶53

...APPLICANT(S)

¶54

...RESPONDENT

¶55

Counsel for the Respondent:

¶56

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

¶57

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

¶58

directed the respondents to be present before the Court on

¶59

II2II

¶60

CA.Nos.5 and 6 of 2012

¶61

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.

¶62

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.

¶63

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

¶69

therein on par with other applicants.

¶70

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.

¶71

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.

¶72

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

¶73

//4//

¶74

CA.Nos.5 and 6 of 2012

¶75

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

¶76

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

¶77

shortlisted 95 candidates as per their merit to attend the

¶78

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

¶79

Contempt Case Nos. 1791 and 1792 of 2011.

¶80

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.

¶81

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

¶82

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

¶83

To,

¶84