In a contempt case filed for alleged violation of a previous order regarding teachers' appointment in Andhra Pradesh, the court accepted the respondents' submission that the order was complied with and the contempt case was closed.
The Contempt Case is closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN
CONTEMPT CASE No.1153 of 2007
ORDER:
This Contempt Case is filed alleging willful and deliberate violation of order of this Court in W.P.No.13945 of 1997, dated 29.01.2007.
The order of this Court in the aforesaid writ petition required respondents to consider the petitioner’s case for appointment as a SG Teacher in terms of the selection held in 1996 without placing any restricti with regards the upper age limit of 36 years within a period of three months f the date of receipt of a copy of the said order.
A counter affidavit is filed by the first respondent. Paragraph No.9 of
said counter affidavit reads as under:
“The Director of School Education, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad vide his Procs.Rc.No.557/B1-2/2007, Dt.28.2.2008 issued instructions clearly stating that the speaking were already issued by the District Educational Officer, Krishna, Machilipatnam to the management vide Lr.dated 14.12.07 “that the individual cannot be appointed into the GIA post as SLP number 9541/07 was pending before Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in which there is a ban with regard to absorptions and appointments”. However, the Government has issued orders in Memo No.4490/PS.II/A1/08, dated 16.4.08 issued orders stating that there is no provision of fixing upper age limit in G.O.Ms.No.1 Education Department dated 1.1.94 for filling up of aided posts. The Government have therefore directed the D.S.E.A.P., Hyderabad, to take further necessary action for issue of appointment orders to Smt.R.Sujatha as SGT in the aided post in Childrens Montessori Ele.School, Vijayawada in relaxation of the instructions issued in Govt.Memo.No.12080/ COSE/2004/A2/04-4, Dated 20.10.04 subject to final outcome of the C.C.No.1153/07 in W.P.No.13945/97 filed by Smt.R.Sujatha. The appointment shall be only with effect from the date of issue of appointment order. Accordingly, instructions were issued to the District Educational Officer, Krishna in Proc.Rc.No.557/B1-2/07, dated 20.4.08 to take necessary action for appointment of the petitioner. The Correspondent, Children’s Montessori Ele.School, Vijayawada in Procs.Rc.No.CMES/08, Dt.21.4.08 issued appointment orders to Smt.R.Sujatha in compliance to the instructions of the D.E.O, Krishna in Lr.Rc.No.71/C1/C6/97, Dt.20.4.08 subject to final outcome of C.C.No.1153/07 in W.P.No.13945/97 filed by Smt.R.Sujatha. The incumbent joined the duty on 21.4.08. The appointment approval of Smt.R.Sujatha as recommended by the Correspondent concerned through the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Urban Range, Vijayawada has been accorded vide procs.Rc.No.71(C1)C6/97, Dt.26.8.09 subject to
final outcome of C.C.No.1153/07 in W.P.No.13945/97 filed by Smt.R.Sujathaand the salary w.e.f.21.4.2008 to 28.2.2009 of the petitioner will be paid after receipt of the arrear grant from the C & DSE, AP., Hyderabad and AGT claim from 1.3.2009 onwards will be paid soon after receipt of the bills from the Correspondent Children’s Montessori Ele.School, Vijayawada and Deputy Inspector of Schools, Urban Range, Vijayawada.”
The respondents further state that, since the petitioner did not work in school from 01.08.2002 till appointment orders were issued on 20.04.2008, is not entitled to salary for the said period. As the order of this Court, requi the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in the writ petition, been complied with, I see no reason to proceed against the respondents un the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
The Contempt Case is accordingly closed.
____________________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN
28.08.2012 vs
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the contempt proceedings should be proceeded against when the impugned order accused of violation has been complied with.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. R. Sujatha
The Director of School Education, Andhra Pradesh
Ramesh Ranganathan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
