N. Deena Kumari Vs Sri Adhar Sinha I.A.S.

¶1

APHC010056672014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶3

THURSDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD

¶6

CONTEMPT CASE NO: 1740 OF 2014

¶7

Between:

¶8

N. Deena Kumari, W/o Rev. R. Andrews, Aged about 58 years, Working as Hindi Pandit Gr-II, (Un-aided), Redwood Memorial High School, Kurnool, R/o Kurnool, Kurnool District.

¶9

...Petitioner

¶10

AND

¶11

Sri Adhar Sinha I A S, Principal Secretary to Government School Education Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh A.P.Secretariat,Hyderabad.

¶12

...Respondent

¶13

Counsel for the Petitioner: GANGISETTY RAJESWARA RAO

¶14

Counsel for the Respondent L V S NAGARAJU

¶15

The Court made the following ORAL ORDER:

¶16

Heard Sri Gangisetty Rajeswara Rao, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri L.V.S. Nagaraju, learned Counsel for the Respondent.

¶17

This Contempt Case is filed alleging that the Order of this Court dated 25.09.2013 in W.P.No.9758 of 2013 & batch has not been complied with. The operative portion of the Order of this court is usefully extracted hereunder:

¶18

“……The objection taken by the State no longer survives, since the said Memo has been quashed by order of this

¶19

2

¶20

Court dated 30.07.2013 in W.P.No.9503 of 2005 and batch. Therefore, there is no prohibition for the State to consider the cases of the petitioners for absorption. Hence, this batch of writ petitions is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent-State to consider the cases of the petitioners for absorption/appointment to their respective posts in the aided vacancies, subject to fulfillment of all other conditions governing the subject, disregarding Government Memo dated 20.10.2004, within three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”

¶21

It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner herein had not been absorbed into service of Redwood Memorial High School, Kurnool (Respondent No.5 in the Writ Petition).

¶22

Sri L.V.S. Nagaraju, learned Counsel for the Respondent has drawn the attention of this Court to the material filed along with the Counter Affidavit and would submit that vide Order dated 18.11.2015, the Competent Authority has complied with the Order of this Court. He would submit that the case of the Petitioner was considered on merit and was rejected for the reasons stated in the Order dated 18.11.2015. He has taken this Court through the Order passed by the Secretary to Government dated 18.11.2015 bearing Memo No.11097/PS/A2/2013. Para Nos.4 & 5 of the Memo dated 18.11.2015 would indicate that the case of the Petitioner has been considered on merit, inasmuch as the Rules that are required to be followed were not followed by the Educational Institutions by taking prior approval and by obtaining Clearance Certificate from the Competent Authority. It has been categorically stated that the relevant Rules would contemplate that obtaining of prior approval as well as the Clearance Certificate by the Education Institution/Educational Agency is mandatory and that in the case of the Petitioner herein, no such approvals have been obtained. It is submitted that the Order in W.P.No.9758 of 2013 and batch dated 25.09.2013 would indicate that the Court had directed the Respondents to consider the case of the Petitioners therein “subject to fulfillment of all other conditions governing the subject”.

¶23

3

¶24

In the above premise, this Court is of the opinion that the Official Respondents herein have complied with the Order of this Court by passing a Speaking Order on 18.11.2015. At this stage, learned Counsel for the Petitioner would submit that as against this Order dated 25.09.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.9758 of 2013 and batch, the Official Respondents have filed W.A.No.196 of 2015 and the same is still pending.

¶25

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner would submit that due to pendency of the present Contempt Case as well as W.A.No.196 of 2015, the Petitioner did not challenge the Order passed by the competent authority vide Memo No.11097/PS/A2/2013 dated 18.11.2015, and therefore, he would seek liberty to file a Writ Petition challenging the said Order dated 18.11.2015.

¶26

Having regard to these facts and having regard to the pendency of the present Contempt Case as well as the W.A.No.196 of 2015 challenging the Order of this Court dated 25.09.2013 in W.P.No.9758 of 2013 and batch, this Court deems it appropriate to grant liberty to the Petitioner to file fresh Writ Petition challenging the Order dated 18.11.2015 bearing Memo No.11097/PS/A2/2013, if so advised.

¶27