Disposed

Dr. K. Mahipal, v. Dr.J.Ajaya Kumar

Telangana HC1 May 2025CC/619/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt petition alleging disobedience of an interim order directing review of the petitioner's promotion panel for Civil Surgeon Specialist without reference to a charge memo. The respondents promoted the petitioner with delay attributed partly to elections. Finding laxity but no wilful disobedience, the court closed the contempt case.

What did the court decide?

Contempt case closed with warning to respondents; no costs.

Dr. K. Mahipal, Vs Dr.J.Ajaya Kumar — Contempt of Court | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[^321s ]

¶2

i i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i

¶3

I I I I I

¶4

IN THE HIGH^{COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶5

THURSDAY,THE^{FIRST DAY OF MAY} TWO THOUSAND AND^TWENTYFIVE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE^{SMT JUSTICET'MADHAVI DEVI}

¶8

CONTEMPT CAS^{E NO:619OF 2024}

¶9

contempt case filed^{undersections 10 to 12 of Contemptof courtsAct,} 1g71 to^punish the^{respondents herein for their willful and deliberate} disobedience of^{the Ordeisof the High Courtdated08-09-2023passedin} l.A.No.1 of 2023 in^{Writ Petition No.24772 of 2024'}

¶10

Between:

¶11

Dr. K. Mahipal,,^{S/o. Mallaiah,ag-ed 44} fqars,-^{Civil Assistant Surgeon} (Anesinesial,'Area Hospital,^{Gajwel, SiddipetDist'' T S}

¶12

...PETITIONER

¶13

AND

¶14

1 Dr.J.Aiava Kumar,, Commissioner,^{Telangana Vaidya VidhanaParishad} oManitis Campus,^{Sultan Bazar, Koti, Hyderabad.} 2 Smt.Christina Z Chongthu,^{lAS,,Secretary-toGovernmentHe.al!!.,Medical} ,"j ri*itv w"tfJre^{DEpartmeni, State of Tetangana,secretariat Building,} Hyderabad

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner:^{SRl.P V KRISHNAIAH}

¶17

Counsel for the^{Respondent No.1:S VIJAY PRASHANTH(SC TVVP)}

¶18

Counsel for the^{Respondent No'2: GP FOR SERVICES - ll}

¶19

The Court made^{the following: ORDER}

¶20

'I I I

¶21

--------- :'. '_ ,

¶22

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI

¶23

CONTEMPT CASE N0.619 0F 2024

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

This Contempt Case is Iiled alleging deliberate ald wilful disobedience of the directions of this Court in I.A.No.1 of 2023 in W.P.No.24ZZ2 of 2023, dated, O8.Og.2023.

¶26

The interim direction of this Court was to the respondents to review the subject panel considering the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Civil Surgeon Specialist without relerence to the Charge Memo dated 12.07.2023, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Along with the order of this Court, the petitioner has made several representations dated 15.09.2023 and O9.I0.2O23. Hovvever, alleging no action on the part of the respondents ald therefore non compliance of the directions of this Court, this Contempt Case has been filed.

¶27

Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.l has filed a counter affidavit to the contempt petition stating that after receipt of the representation of the petitioner dated 09. 1O.2023, the respondents could not take immediate action as there was a model code of conduct on

¶28

TMD,J C C.No.619^{ot 2024} 2

¶29

¶30

account of^{the General Assembly Electionsin Telangana} State from^{Og.lO.2O23to 04'12'2023'It is submittedthat} thereaftertheCommissioner,TelanganaVaidyaVidhana Parishad^{(TWP) has submittedthe proposalsfor conduct of} review of^{promotions and the petitioner was promotedvide} G.O.Rt.No.519,^{d,ated' O4'O9'2O24and posted atArea} Hospitai,^{Deverakonda,Nalgonda District' in the existing} vacancy and^{he was relievedon 2O'O9'2O24'It is stated that} during the^{general transfers 2024, only one Anaesthetist} who was^{working at Area Hospital' Deverakonda'was} transferred^{and posted to an other TWP Hospitaland at} no doctors^{working at Area Hospital'} present there^was Deverakondaⁱⁿ any cadre^{i.e., CivilSurgeon} Civil Surgeon^{Specialist andCivil} Specialist/^DePutY Assistant^Surgeon Specialist^{inAnaesthesia Department} and therefore,^{the servicesof the seniormost Anaesthetist} were required^{for conducting each and €very surgery} (Gynec/General)^{at Area Hospital,Deverakonda'Nalgonda} District,toservethepoor.WhereastheDistrictHospital, Gajwel, Siddipet^{District, alreadyhas threeAnaesthetists} were working^{in differentcadres'When these facts were} brought to the^{notice of this Court,the learned counsel for}

¶31

TMD,J C.C No.619 of 2024

¶32

¶33

J-..... ,: *; -=.}1.'] -./

¶34

¶35

the petitioner had submitted that the respondents have wilfully and deliberately posted the petitioner to Area Hospital, Deverakonda, Nalgonda District, for having filed the u'rit petition before this court. Therefore, this court had directed the respondents to submit the procedure adopted by them and also to give the petitioner options availdble for posting him to a station. The petitioner was given the facility of giving the options and thereafter, it was reported that the petitioner has given the option of only District Hospital, Gajwel, Siddipet District and it was not possible to accommodate him at the said place since he has completed five years of service in the said place and there were three other Anaesthetists working in the said area in different cadre.

¶36

Learned Government pleader for respondent No.2 has also filed a counter affidavit stating the above arrd the procedure of the Selection Committee is also filed before this Court to demonstrate that the procedure has been follor.,r,ed by the respondents in imprementation of the directions of this Court ald tha.t there is no delay on their part.

¶37

TMD,J C.C.No^{619of 2024}

¶38

¶39

i ,

¶40

5 Learned^{counselfor the petitioner' on the other} hand, relied^{upon the judgment of the} Hon'ble^SuPreme EnterPrises^Vs' Court in^{the case ofM/s'Sitaram} Contempt^{Petition (Civil)} Prithviraj^{Vardichand Jain in} Nos.198-199^{of2024 itSpecial LeavePetition (Civil)} Nos.120B3-1^{2084 of2023, to submitttLat "Contempt of} Court^is a^{serious legat infraction that strikesat tle uery soul} of^{justice and tLesanctitgoflegal proceedings" and} therefore,^{the contemnor should be dealt with strictly'}

¶41

Having^{regard to the rival contentionsand the} material^{on record, this Court finds that the respondents} have considered^{the case ofthePetitioner and have} of Civil^Surgeon to the Post promoted the Petrtroner of the Petitioner^is The grievance Specialist^{on 04'O9'2O24'} considerable delay in^the that there^hasbeen implementation^{of the directions of this Court and that the} respondents^{have not compliedwith the directionsunless} the Contempt^{Case has been hled by the petitioner'The} further^{grievance of the petitioner is that he has been posted} at Deverakonda^{and not at Gajwel, SiddipetDistrictas per} liB .hor"t.^{This Court finds that the respondents were}

¶42

'r/

¶43

?\4D,J C.C.No.6 t9 of2024

¶44

¶45

, I

¶46

prevented by reasonable cause in implementing the directions of this Court immediately after passing of the order due to General Assembly elections in the Telangana State. However, subsequent thereto and that too after firing of the contempt case, the respondents have taken almost a period of six months in promoting the petitioner. The cause for the delay has not been satisfactorily explained by the respondents. This Court is therefore of the opinion that there was ia-xity on the part of the respondents in compiying with the directions of this Court. Therefore, warning the respondents to be more responsible in future, this Court deems it fit and proper to crose the contempt case as this court does not find any reason to interfere with the order of posting of the petitioner to the Area Hospitar, Deverakonda, as it is the discretion to be exercised by the respondents, particularly when the petitioner has not given any other option but Gajwel, where the vacancy is not available arrd that the petitioner had already worked there for a period of five years.

¶47

Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶48

I I i I t t I t I I I I

¶49

¶50

-:'l
TMD,J
C.C.No.6 t9 of 2024 c :,
'{:

¶51

8 Miscellaleous^{applications' if any pending' shall}

also stand^closed

'fl;LTS'XLt!3i-=^'J

//TRUE^COPY'/

L SECTION^OFFTCER

dent^No.1

¶57

To, 1 Two CCs^{to the SYiiay Prashanth' Advocate for Respon} 1SC-rwe1^{1Ou t1} No.2 [OUT]

¶58

1. Two^{CCs to the GP for Services-ll' Advocate for Respondent}

¶59

3 One^{CC to SRI P V KRISHNAIAH Advocate [OPUCI} 4 Two^{CD CoPies}

RRJPSL

I I

i I lI I I

i I i I I I ! I l I l

¶65

, I I : i : l I I I l i I I j I

I l ; :

HIGH COURT

DATED:01 tOStZOZs

ORDER

CC.No.619 ot 2024

S-[ ATE cF
r,)
Ns
,] \t
C, 1":
<) -['
*
D=s?r'l

¶72

CONTEMPT CASE IS CLOSED

¶73

)
,t<br>lD
(r',rf'alu

Dr. K. Mahipal, v. Dr.J.Ajaya Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. K. Mahipal, v. Dr.J.Ajaya Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s. Vivanth Crop Sciences Vs The State of Telangana

B. Tarachand Naik Vs The State of Ts

Nerlapalli Ramchandri Vs The State of Telangana

M/s. Credulous Nutri Chem Private Limited Vs The State of Telangana

Vydyanath Jamedar Vs The State of Telangana

Mallam Gopal Vs Naveen Nicolas