Dismissed

Kalluri Ramesh v. Ch.Narsimha Reddy

Telangana HC23 Dec 2011CC/1461/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court considered a contempt petition alleging violation of a 2007 order directing the respondent Corporation to declare interview results. The court found the respondent had complied by issuing a speaking order in 2007 rejecting the petitioner. The contempt case was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Contempt case dismissed; any challenge to the 20.12.2007 rejection order is at the liberty of the petitioner.

Kalluri Ramesh Vs Ch.Narsimha Reddy — Contempt of Court | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA

¶2

CONTEMPT CASE No:1461 OF 2011

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This contempt case is filed complaining violation of the orders passed by this Court dated 10.8.2007 in W.P.No.10066 of 2007.

¶5

The petitioner along with others filed the writ petition to declare the action of the respondents in not sending the call letters along with others for the interviews scheduled to be conducted from 14.5.2007 or any other subsequent date to the post of Junior Lineman, operation Circle APNPDCL, Adilabad, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently, to direct the respondents to conduct interviews to the petitioner to the post of Junior Lineman, Operation circle, APNPDCL, Adilabad.

¶6

This Court while admitting the writ petition granted interim orders permitting the petitioners therein to appear for the interview/written examination, however, directed the respondents not to declare their results. In pursuance of the interim order, interviews were conducted to the petitioners during the pendency of the writ petition. Hence, this Court disposed of the writ petition with the order under contempt, which reads as follows:

¶7

“The respondent-Corporation are directed to declare the results of the interview. If any of the petitioners are declared passed in the interview, then the respondent-Corporation shall consider their case for appointment as Contract Junior Lineman, if they are otherwise qualified and eligible for being appointed as such.”

¶8

It is the case of the petitioner that in spite of the above direction, the respondents have not initiated any steps.

¶9

The respondent filed counter-affidavit stating that the petitioner belongs to OC-community and as per the roster point meant for that category he has secured 67.69 marks in I.T.I. qualification, while the last successful candidate against the said roster point against the notified vacant posts secured 78.15. Therefore, the petitioner was not

¶10

selected for the post of CJLM and speaking order was issued vide LR No.SE/Op/ADB/Adm/PO/E1/D.No.3069/07, dated 20.12.2007 and the same was communicated under certificate of posting. The learned Counsel for the petitioner did not dispute the said fact.

¶11

A perusal of the averments in the counter-affidavit makes it clear that the respondent has complied with the orders of this Court in the year 2007 itself and the orders passed by the respondent were communicated to the petitioner.

¶12

In view of the same, I feel that there is no disobedience on the part of the respondent as alleged by the petitioner and hence, the contempt case is liable to be dismissed.

¶13

Accordingly, the Contempt Case is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to challenge the order dated 20.12.2007 passed by the respondent. No costs.

¶14

__________________ Justice N.V. Ramana

¶15

Dated:23.12.2011 Nn.

¶16

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA

¶17

CONTEMPT CASE No:1461 OF 2011

¶18

23.12.2011

¶19

Kalluri Ramesh v. Ch.Narsimha Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kalluri Ramesh v. Ch.Narsimha Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.J.Rajeswari Vs J.Sakunthalamamma [Died]

P.Venkataswamy Reddy Vs Shaik Nanne Saheb[died]

Zarina Bee Vs S.Karimullah and 6 Others

A. cHenchu Reddy Vs R. Balasubramanyam

S. Eswarachari Vs N. Venugopal

Kanishka Bar and Restaurant Vs M/s. Shriram Chits Pvt. Ltd.