Disposed¶23

S.Krishna Rao, v. D.Mariyanna

Andhra Pradesh HC6 Nov 2025CC/1037/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Andhra Pradesh High Court Amaravati; Contempt Case 1037 of 2025; Justice Challa Gunaranjan; willful disobedience; order dated 04.03.2025 in W.P.No.5402 of 2025; PH Quota; Physically Handicapped (VH/HH/OH); promotion to Executive Engineer; panel year 2024-25 vs 2025-26; Disability Certificate genuine and valid; District Medical Board GGH Ananthapuramu 29.10.2025; 40% blindness; Engineer-in-Chief (FAC) memo 04.11.2025; counter-affidavit 06.11.2025; contempt case closed; no order as to costs; issue left open for pending Writ Petition.

What did the court decide?

None beyond closure: Contempt Case closed; no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous applications stand closed; panel-year question (2024-25 vs 2025-26) left open to agitate in the pending Writ Petition or by appropriate proceedings. ¶23

S.Krishna Rao, Vs D.Mariyanna — Andhra Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent (contemnor) willfully disobeyed the order dated 04.03.2025 passed in W.P.No.5402 of 2025, giving rise to this Contempt Case. +1 more

¶15

Court's answer

The interim order passed by this Court in W.P.No.5402 of 2025 merely directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's case under the PH Quota having referred to his eligibility, and did not deal with the year for which he should have been considered; accordingly the panel-year grievance did not constitute willful disobedience of that order.

¶21

Ratio / Principle

This Contempt Case is closed, with no order as to costs, and pending miscellaneous applications in the case stand closed.

¶22

Key takeaways

The question whether the petitioner's case should be considered for panel year 2024-25 or 2025-26 is expressly left open for him to agitate in the pending Writ Petition or by initiating appropriate proceedings, if so advised.obiter¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Contempt Case No. 1037 of 2025 (High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati; Challa Gunaranjan, J.; decided 07-11-2025): Filed by S.Krishna Rao alleging willful disobedience by contemnor D. Mariyanna of the order dated 04.03.2025 in W.P.No.5402 of 2025 concerning consideration of the petitioner under the PH Quota for promotion to Executive Engineer. Pursuant to an order dated 10.10.2025 the respondent appeared in person and filed a counter-affidavit dated 06.11.2025 with a memo dated 04.11.2025 of the Engineer-in-Chief (FAC), reporting that the final report of the District Medical Board, GGH, Ananthapuramu dated 29.10.2025 found the petitioner's Disability Certificate genuine and valid (he continues to suffer 40% blindness) and that his case would be considered for promotion for panel year 2025-26 by seniority among eligible Physically Handicapped (VH/HH/OH) candidates. Counsel for petitioner argued consideration ought to have been for panel year 2024-25; the Court held the interim order had merely directed consideration under the PH Quota and did not deal with the panel year. The Court closed the Contempt Case, expressly leaving open whether the petitioner should be considered for panel year 2024-25 or 2025-26, to be agitated in the pending Writ Petition or by initiating appropriate proceedings. No order as to costs; pending miscellaneous applications stand closed.

¶1

APHC010200022025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Bench Sr.No:-1 AT AMARAVATI

¶3

[3506]

¶4

CONTEMPT CASE NO: 1037 of 2025

S.Krishna Rao

...Petitioner

Vs.

D. Mariyanna

...Contemnor

Advocate for Petitioner: Mr. P. V. Ramana Advocate for Contemnor: Mr. Mannam Venkata Krishna Rao

¶12

CORAM : SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN

¶13

DATE : 7^th November, 2025.

¶14

ORDER:

¶15

The present Contempt Case has been filed alleging willful disobedience on the part of the respondent in complying with the order dated 04.03.2025, passed in W.P.No.5402 of 2025.

¶16

2. Pursuant to the earlier order, dated 10.10.2025, respondent is present in person, today.

¶17

3. The respondent has filed counter-affidavit, dated 06.11.2025, along with memo dated 04.11.2025, issued by Engineer-in-Chief (FAC), wherein inter alia it is stated that pursuant to the final report of the District Medical Board, GGH, Ananthapuramu, dated 29.10.2025, the Disability Certificate submitted by the petitioner was found to be genuine and valid and that the case of the petitioner would be considered for promotion for the post of Executive

¶18

¶19

CGRJ CC_1037_2025

¶20

Engineer as per the seniority among the other eligible Physically Handicapped (VH/HH/OH) candidates for the panel year 2025-26. It is also stated that as per the said final report, the petitioner continues to suffer from 40% blindness.

¶21

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner although stated that petitioner’s case ought to have been considered for the panel year 2024-25 and not for the subsequent year, the interim order passed by this Court was merely directing the respondents to consider the case of petitioner under PH Quota, having referred to his eligibility, and the same did not deal with the year for which he should have been considered.

¶22

5. Be that as it may, this Contempt Case is closed. Leaving the issue as to whether the case of the petitioner be considered for the panel year 2024-25 or 2025-26, open for him to agitate in either the pending Writ Petition or by initiating appropriate proceedings, if so advised.

¶23

No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, in this case, shall stand closed.

¶24

CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J.

¶25

SSN

S.Krishna Rao, v. D.Mariyanna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Krishna Rao, v. D.Mariyanna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

D.Padmanabha Naidu Vs the Govt. of Andhra Pradesh and 2 Others

D.Mallikarjuna Reddy, Anantapur. Vs Presiding Officer, Ind.Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court,&Ano

Ch.Venkateswara Rao, W.G.Dist., & 11 Ors. Vs the Dist.Co.Op.Officer, W.G.Dist., & 2 Others

Dr K Vara Sai Prasad Vs Shanthi Priya, S

Bathula Siva Rama Krishna Vs Smt a Thameem Ansariya IAS

Village Horticulture Assistants Welfare Association Vs M Shiva Prasad (Ifs)