K.Yadagiri Vs Sri. Sridhar

¶1

-- -!

¶2

132521

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry Fl'i

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶7

contempt case filed Under sections 10 to 12 of contempt of courts Act, 1971 to punish the responoents rrliein for their williul a-nd deliberate disobedience of the orders of the High court oat"Jzo.og.zoiz p"rr"iin w.p.No. 19615 0f 2015.

¶8

Between:

¶9

K.Yadagiri, s/o. Buch.aiah, Aged about 59 years, occ. Teacher, R/o. H.No. 13_zz, i'r"sri -x,'no6 i &ir r" g; * M a n da r;, rvran a o uon"s a i bilil,E:il' "yfST J;;f

¶10

AND

¶11

...Petitioner

¶12

1' sri" sridhar,- tAS, secretary to the Government, school Education Department, Secretariat Buildings, nyOelOii'

¶13

1. sri. E.L Narasimha Reddy, rAS, commissioner & Director of schoor Education, Telangana, Hyderabad. Lakshmi, Regional Joint Director of schoot Education,

¶14

3' ;frt;rrlrJr'*

¶15

4' sri' A' Ramesh Kumar, District Educational officer, Nagarkurnool District.

¶16

j ..Respondenb/Contemnors

¶17

Counsel for the petitioner: Sri. K. Kiran Mayee

¶18

counser for the Respondent No.4: Assistant Gp for services-l

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

:E ''.,*

¶21

tl

¶22

.-1

¶23

IN THE HIGH COURT OF T LANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶24

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTI cESUREPALLI NANDA

¶25

CONTEMPT CASE No.22O7 OF 2025

¶26

DATE: 02.12.2025

¶27

Betweerr:

¶28

Sri K. YErdagiri, And

¶29

Petitioner

¶30

Sri Sridlrar & three others

¶31

. Respondents

¶32

ORDER:

¶33

Heard Ms. K. Kiranmayee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services - I, appearing on behalf of.respondent No.4.

¶34

2. The^petitioner aDDroached the Court seekinq^praver as under:

¶35

"...pleased to to punish the Respondents under Section:i 10 :o 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for his willful and deliberate disobedience of the Orders passed.by the Hor'ble High Court in W.P.No.19615 of 2015, datr-,d 26.09.2022 and pass...".

¶36

Leilrned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contendsi that the impugned proceedings vide Proc.No:43/1610/2024, dated 20.06.2025 issued against the _l

.A--.{

2

SN, J 6,2207 2025

petitioner herein by the District Educational Officer, Nagarkurnool are in clear violation of the orders of this Court dated 26.09.2022 passed in W.P.No.19615 of 2015 and also the Division Bench orders as modified by the Division Bench of this Court passed in W.A.No.90 of 2025 dated 26.03.2025. Therefore, appropriate orders need to be passed in the present Contempt Case giving liberty to the petitioner to pursue the remedies as are available to the petitioner against the impugned proceedings vide Proc.No:A3/L6t0/2024, dated 20.06.2025 issued by the District Educational Officer, Nagarkurnool in compliance to the directions of this Court dated 26.09.2022 passed in W.P.No.19615 of 2015 read with the Division Bench Judgment dated 26.03.2025 passed in W.A.No.90 of 2025

¶41

Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents contends that in^pursuance to the directions of this Court dated 26.09.2022^passed in W.P.No.19615 of 2015 and duly considering the Division Bench orders^passed in W.A.No.90 of 2025 dated 26.03.2025, detailed^proceedings vide Proc.No:43116L012024 dated 20.06.2025 had been issued by the District Educational Officer, Nagarkurnool, duly considering the proposals vide Rc.No.34 of 2013 submitted by respondent No.S

---"------r f^' -

w

3

SN. J cc 2207 2025

herein in the month of October, 2013 against the petitioner herein holding that the said proposals are not liable for consideration vide speaking orders dated 20.06.2025 and therefore, the present Contempt Case needs to be closed.

¶47

5 RUSED THE RECO RD.

¶48

\

¶49

A bare perusal of the record indicates that in compliance to the directions of this Court passed in W.p.No,19615 of 2015 dated 25.09.2022 which had been subsequently modified vide orders of Division Bench of this Court dated 26.03.2025 passed in W.A. No.90 of 2025, detailed speaking orders dated 20.06.2Ct25 vide proc.No: A3lL6LO/ZOZ4 had been issued against the pet tioner herein by the District Educational Officer, Nagarkurnoor by rejecting the proposars of respondent No.s in Rc.No.34 of 2013 in October, 2013.

¶50

Thi:; Court opines that the legality of the speaking orders, dated 20 06.2025 issued to the petitioner herein by the District Educational Officer, Nagarkurnool District i.e., respondent No.4 cannot ber rooked into under the contempt jurisdiction and there is no contempt as complained by the petitioner herein.

-rE.-_-

4

/

SN, J n cc-2207 _2025

¶55

Accordinqlv, the Contempt Case is closed. However, it is ooen for the^petitioner to oursue the remedies as are available to the oetitioner aoainst the oroceedinos dated 20.O6.2O25 vide Proc.No:A3 / 161O / 2O24, issued by the District Educational Officer, Naoarkurnool, in comoliance to the soecific directions issued by this Courtⁱⁿ W.P.No.19615 of 2O15 read with the Division Bench iudoment in W.A.No.9O of 2O25 dated 26.O3.2025.^There shall be no order as to cost.

¶56

Miscellaneous^petitions, if any,^pending in this Writ^Petition, ghall sJgnd Elo_Sed,

¶57

,,TRUE COPY'/

¶58

SD/- MOHD.ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR6

¶59

SECTION OFFICER

¶60