Dismissed

M. Adinaryana, v. Sri Rajeshwar Tiwari, I.A.S.

Telangana HC12 Feb 2013CC/1970/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners filed a contempt case alleging willful non-compliance of a writ order directing absorption into aided posts, claiming a government order failed to specify the effective date of absorption. The court dismissed the case, finding no deliberate disobedience.

What did the court decide?

Contempt case dismissed with liberty to petitioners to avail appropriate remedy if dissatisfied with G.O.Ms.No.53, dated 30-6-2012.

M. Adinaryana, Vs Sri Rajeshwar Tiwari, I.A.S. — Education and Admissions | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY C.C.No.1970 of 2012

¶2

Date : 12-2-2013

¶3

Between: M. Adinarayana, Secretary & Correspondent, Nehru Convent Aided High School, Ashok Nagar, Kakinada, East Godavari District and 2 others .. Petitioners

¶4

And Sri Rajeshwar Tiwari, I.A.S., Principal Secretary, Department of School Education, Government of A.P., Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad .. Respondent

¶5

Counsel for petitioners : Sri CH. Samson Babu Counsel for respondent : Assistant Government Pleader for School Education

¶6

The Court made the following:

¶7

ORDER:

¶8

This Contempt Case is filed alleging willful noncompliance of order dated 27-8-2010 in W.P.No.7849/2006. While disposing of the above mentioned Writ Petition, this Court has quashed the order impugned therein and directed the respondent herein to approve the proposals of petitioner No.1-Management for absorption of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 in the aided posts as recommended by respondent No.4 therein-the District Educational Officer, Kakinada, East Godavari District, by passing a fresh order. Purporting to comply with the said order, the respondent issued G.O.Ms.No.53, dated 30-6-2012, wherein he has granted permission for absorption of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 as S.G.T. and Hindi Pandit Grade-II in the aided posts in the Nehru Convent High School, Kakinada, East Godavari District, subject to the outcome of the Writ Appeal stated to have been filed against the order in the Writ Petition.

¶9

The petitioners filed this Contempt Case with the complaint that the order of this Court in the above mentioned Writ Petition was not fully complied with as the G.O. did not

¶10

indicate the date from which petitioner Nos.2 and 3 have been absorbed in the aided posts.

¶11

The respondent filed a counter-affidavit wherein it is inter alia stated that it is not permissible to accord absorption of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 retrospectively in view of Section 3 of Act 37 of 2005.

¶12

In my opinion, the question whether the absorption of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 dates back to the date of their initial appointment or not was not specifically decided by this Court in W.P.No.7849/2006. This Court has merely directed the respondent to absorb petitioner Nos.2 and 3 as per the recommendation of the District Educational Officer, Kakinada, East Godavari. Therefore, the question whether the District Educational Officer, Kakinada, has recommended absorption of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 with retrospective effect or not, needs to be considered if and when the latter institute fresh proceedings, if they are not satisfied with the above mentioned G.O. On the facts of this case, I am not convinced that the respondent has deliberately disobeyed the order of this Court. Therefore, the Contempt Case is dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to avail the appropriate remedy if they feel dissatisfied with G.O.Ms.No.53, dated 30-6-2012.

¶13

________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy

¶14

Date : 12-2-2013

¶15

M. Adinaryana, v. Sri Rajeshwar Tiwari, I.A.S.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Adinaryana, v. Sri Rajeshwar Tiwari, I.A.S.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Vaddapally Kamalamma, W/o. Rajagopal Naidu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its

Sri P.Netaji, Vs The Development Credit Bank Ltd., Rep by its

M/s Muthyal Rao Co-op. Housing Society Ltd, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Gangana Obi Reddy, Vs Kolala Ujjinappa , Gittappa

Kumari Chinanapa Reddy, Vs The Govt. of A.P.

Kagitapu Siva Sankara Nageswara Rao, Vs Union of India