Telangana High Court
M Rajender vs Smt. R. Ranjeev Acharya, I.A.S on 20 December, 2021Bench: Satish Chandra Sharma, A.Rajasheker Reddy
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY
CONTEMPT APPEAL Nos.19, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34,
35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 43, 46, 47 and 48 of 2019 and
CONTEMPT CASE Nos.2495 of 2017, 2203 of 2018 and
1498 of 2019
COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)
Regard being had to the similitude in the controversy
involved in the present cases, the contempt appeals and
contempt petitions were analogously heard and by this
common judgment, they are being disposed of by this
Court.
The contempt appeals are arising out of common
order passed in contempt petitions, i.e. C.C. (TR) Nos.2 of
2017 and batch, dated 05.09.2019 alleging violation of the
orders passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative
Tribunal (‘Tribunal’, for short) in O.A.No.144 of 2006 and
other connected matters.
The facts of the cases reveal that on 04.03.1998, a
Notification was issued keeping in view the Recruitment
Rules framed by the Government and notified vide
G.O.Ms.No.221, Education Department, dated
16.07.1994. As per the Notification, the process of
selection was for 100 marks, out of which 85 marks are
for written examination and 15 marks are for interview.
2
The Rules prescribe minimum qualifying marks as 50 for
general candidates, 45 marks for backward classes and
40 marks for scheduled castes and scheduled tribes, out
of 85 marks earmarked for written examination. The State
Government, thereafter, issued G.O.Rt.No.618, dated
18.05.1998 relaxing the qualifying marks by 5 marks in
respect of all categories and selections are finalised by
reducing qualifying marks by 5 in 17 Districts, out of 23
Districts of the combined State. The contempt cases are
arising from six districts, namely Karimnagar, Warangal,
Khammam and Nalgonda Districts of State of Telangana
and the other two Districts, namely Ananthapur and
Kadapa, are now part of State of Andhra Pradesh. The
court cases were filed in respect of process of selection
challenging G.O.Rt.No.618, dated 18.05.1998 before the
Tribunal and the Original Applications were dismissed by
the Tribunal. Thereafter, writ petition was preferred
against the order of the Tribunal, i.e., W.P.No.15463 of
1998 and the same was allowed holding that there cannot
be any change in the eligibility criteria once the process of
recruitment has begun and G.O.Rt.No.618, dated
18.05.1998 was set aside. Then, the matter was carried to
the Hon’ble Supreme Court and no stay was granted.
Hence, the appointments were made without applying the
3
relaxed standard of qualifying marks. On 17.12.1998, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has stayed the Judgment of the
Hon’ble High Court and thereafter the candidates, after
reducing the cut-off marks, were appointed as against the
available vacancies. Finally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
has allowed the Appeals setting aside the Judgment of the
Hon’ble High Court in the case of B.Ramanjini v. State of
Andhra Pradesh1. The appointments already made were not
disturbed, though the criteria reducing the eligibility i.e.,
Government decision in G.O.Rt.No.618, dated 18.05.1998,
was upheld. While this process was going on, the State
Government took a policy decision on 23.05.2005
proposing to accommodate willing candidates as Vidya
Volunteers and the Memo dated 23.05.2005 was
challenged before the Tribunal in O.A.Nos.8391 of 2005,
146 of 2006 and 587 of 2006. The aforesaid Original
Applications were dismissed by the Tribunal on
18.07.2008. Other batch of Original Applications
challenging the same Government decision dated
23.05.2005 was allowed by the Tribunal i.e., O.A.No.144
of 2006 and batch vide Order dated 04.12.2009 and the
aforesaid Order was challenged before this Court in
W.P.No.23253 of 2010 and batch and a Division Bench of
this Court has upheld the Order passed by the Tribunal.
1
(2002) 5 SCC 533
4
The net result was that the State was required to
prepare a fresh list of candidates for appointments on the
basis of the Recruitment of 1998, keeping in view the
Order delivered by the Tribunal dated 04.12.2009 passed
in O.A.No.144 of 2006 and batch. The contempt cases
which are subject matter of the contempt appeals were
initially filed before the Tribunal and stood transferred to
this Court on account of abolition of the Tribunals.
Another important aspect of the case is that earlier also
the contempt petitions were preferred before the High
Court alleging violation of the Order passed by the
Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.4287 of 2010 and
batch i.e., C.C.No.1814 of 2012 and the same was
dismissed by this Court by an order dated 16.07.2013.
The Order dated 16.07.2013 is reproduced as under:-
“This Contempt Case, under Sections 10 to 12 of
the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, is filed claiming relief
to summon the respondents herein and punish them for
willfully and deliberately violating the order dated
08.11.2011 passed by this Court in W.P.No.4287 of 2010.
2. In the year 1998, the Commissioner and
Director of School Education issued notification, inviting
applications for recruitment to various posts including the
posts of Secondary Grade Teachers. The appointment and
recruitment to the said posts was governed by Rules
framed vide G.O.Ms.No.221 Education Department dated
16.07.1994. As per the Rules, one must secure a
minimum of 50 marks out of 85, in the written test to be
eligible for interview, if he/she is a candidate belonging to
5
O.C. category. In respect of candidates belonging to B.C.
category, minimum qualifying marks are 45 and for
candidates belonging to S.C. and S.T. category, minimum
qualifying marks are 40. After the written examination,
when it was found that qualified candidates were less
than the number of vacancies notified, Government issued
G.O.Rt.No.618 Education Department dated 18.05.1998,
reducing the qualifying marks by 5 marks in each
category. Acting upon such orders, appointments were
made in some Districts in the State. Challenging the said
orders, some of the applicants approached this Court and
this Court set aside the said orders, vide order dated
16.10.1998. As against the order of this Court, the matter
was carried by way of Special Leave Petition to the Hon’ble
Supreme Court and initially interim orders were passed,
staying the operation of the order of this Court. Pursuant
to the interim orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, Government issued orders vide G.O.Ms.No.95
Education Department dated 19.03.1999 for finalizing the
selections as per the revised reduced criteria.
Subsequently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the
said S.L.P., setting aside the order of this Court.
3. In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, it is the case of the petitioners that they
are entitled to be considered for appointment as
Secondary Grade Teachers. After the said judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court, Government issued orders vide
G.O.Rt.No.583 Education Department dated 21.06.2004
to examine the representation of the unsuccessful
candidates of D.S.C. 1998. Further orders were issued
vide Memo No.7705/Ser.VII/2004 dated 23.05.2005 by
issuing directions to the Director of School Education to
give preference to D.S.C. 1998 qualified teachers while
making appointments to the posts of Vidya Volunteers.
4. It is the case of the petitioners that though
some persons were appointed pursuant to the orders
issued by the Government vide G.O.Rt.No.615 Education
Department dated 18.05.1998, at the same time, there is
6
no reason to deny appointment to them who are otherwise
eligible for appointment.
5. When the list of selected candidates
pursuant to D.S.C. 1998 was not revised by appointing
the petitioners herein, they approached the Tribunal by
filing O.A.No.587 of 2006, which was dismissed along with
other O.As., by common order dated 04.12.2009 mainly
on the ground that selections relate to 1998 batch and as
several other individuals who are appointed are not
impleaded as party respondents, they are not entitled to
any relief as prayed for. As against the common order of
the Tribunal dated 04.12.2009, further Writ Petitions were
filed before this Court, which were allowed by a Division
Bench by order dated 08.11.2011 holding that even the
petitioners are entitled for extension of same benefits, as
the applicants in O.A.No.355 of 2006 and batch decided
by the Tribunal on 04.12.2009.
6. In this Contempt Case, it is the case of the
petitioners that in view of the order of this Court dated
08.11.2011, respondents ought to have revised the entire
selection list of D.S.C. 1998 by extending appointment to
them.
7. A detailed counter-affidavit is filed by the
District Educational Officer, Karimnagar, wherein while
denying the various allegations made by the petitioners, it
is stated that the Tribunal, while disposing of the
applications, relied on the observations made by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.6461 of 1998
and batch. It is stated that in view of the said
observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is not
open to them to disturb the appointments already made
by replacing the candidates already appointed, by
appointing the petitioners. Further, it is categorically
stated that even on review, it was noticed that no
candidate who secured less marks than that of the
petitioners was appointed. Thus, it is stated that there is
no violation of the order of this Court, attracting the
7
provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act and prayed for
dismissal of the Contempt Case.
8. Heard Sri J.R. Manohar Rao, learned
counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional
Advocate General for the respondents.
9. During the year 1998, when notification was
issued for recruitment of Teachers, the same was governed
by the Rules framed vide G.O.Ms.No.221 dated
16.07.1994. It is true that when orders were issued by
the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.618 dated 18.05.1993, by
which qualifying marks were reduced, the same was
questioned before this Court and this Court allowed the
batch of cases, but, at the same time, after filing S.L.P.,
before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, there were interim
orders staying the operation of the order of this Court. In
view of the interim orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
passed in the S.L.P., Government issued orders vide
G.O.Ms.No.95 dated 19.03.1999. In the aforesaid orders,
it is categorically stated that candidates appointed on the
basis of pre-revised criteria in pursuance of the order of
this Court shall be continued for present, pending
outcome of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Further, in the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Civil Appeal No.6461 of 1998, the following observations
are made:
“Selection process had commenced long back as
early as in 1998 and it had been completed. The
persons were appointed pursuant to the selections
made and had been performing their duties. However,
the selected candidates had not been impleaded as
parties to the proceedings either in their individual
capacity or in any representative capacity. In that
view of the matter, the High Court ought not to have
examined any of the questions raised before it in the
proceedings initiated before it. The writ petitions filed
by the concerned respondents ought to have been
dismissed which are more or less in the nature of a
public interest litigation. It is not a case where those
8
candidates who could not take part in the
examination had challenged the same nor was any
public interest, as such, really involved in this
matter. It is only in the process of selection and
standardisation of pass marks some relaxation had
been given which was under attack. Therefore, the
High Court ought not to have examined the matter at
the instance of the petitioners, particularly in the
absence of the parties before the court whose
substantial rights to hold office came to be vitally
affected.”
10. In view of the observations made in the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is not open to
replace any of the selected candidates who are not made
parties to the lis. Having regard to the specified number of
vacancies notified and filled and having regard to the
observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
Civil Appeal referred above, it cannot be said that there is
wilful violation of the order dated 08.11.2011 passed by
this Court in W.P.No.4287 of 2010. If the petitioners
claim that they are to be appointed in spite of the
vacancies being already filled pursuant to the interim
orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, they could
have approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court seeking
appropriate directions. But, at the same time, as the
appointed candidates were not made parties and when the
selection process was completed long back pursuant to
the D.S.C. notification issued in the year 1998, at this
point of time it is not open to the petitioners to claim
appointments. Having regard to the findings recorded by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Civil Appeal referred
above, it is also impermissible for the respondents to
disturb the candidates who are already appointed and
who are not made parties in various Writ Petitions.
Hence, it cannot be said that there is any willful and
deliberate violation of the order 08.11.2011 passed by this
Court in W.P.No.4287 of 2010, so as to entertain this
9
Contempt Case under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
and punish the respondents.
11. Contempt Case is accordingly dismissed. As
a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending shall
stand closed.”
A Division Bench of this Court has dismissed the
contempt petition holding that no contempt is made out.
The learned Single Judge, while deciding the contempt
cases i.e., Contempt Case (TR) No.2 of 2017 and batch, by
an order dated 08.08.2019, has held that as the revised
merit list was not drawn, the contemnors are held guilty
and subsequently, by an order dated 05.09.2019, has
inflicted the punishment to undergo simple imprisonment
for a period of two months with fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees
two thousand only) for violating the orders passed in
O.A.No.144 of 2006 and batch. Paragraph 5 of the
aforesaid order is reproduced as under:-
“5. In view of the same, the Contemnors are held
guilty of violating the directions of A.P.Administrative
Tribunal in O.A.Nos.144/06, 2997/10, 2206/10,
7553/10,; 10078/10, 1498/10, 1329/10, 10287/11,
1296/10, 1639/10, 9867/11, 10345/11, 3442/11,
3047/10, 3157/10, 2948/10, 355/06, 10040/11,
10077/11, 558/12 and 1882/10 wilfully and deliberately
and are imposed with punishment to undergo simple
imprisonment and are imposed with punishment to
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months
with fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only). The
fine amount shall be paid within a period of two weeks
from the date of receipt of copy of this order. However, to
10
enable the Contemnors to avail the remedy of appeal, four
weeks time is granted to them. Sentence of simple
imprisonment and fine is suspended for a period of four
weeks. During the period of detention, the Commissioner
of School Education shall deposit the subsistence
allowance @ Rs.200/- (Rupees two hundred only) per day
for each of the Contemnors.”
When the contempt appeals were taken up by this
Court on 22.04.2021, this Court has passed a detailed
order directing the appellants to explain to this Court as
to how they have complied with the order passed by the
Tribunal, by the High Court and by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court and the order dated 22.04.2021 is reproduced as
under:-
“1. The appellants are aggrieved by a common
order dated 05.09.2019 passed by the learned Single
Judge in a batch of contempt petitions filed by the private
petitioners with the grievance that they have willfully
violated the orders passed by the Andhra Pradesh
Appellate Tribunal (APAT) in a batch of Original
Applications. In the impugned order, the learned Single
Judge has arrived at a conclusion that the appellants are
guilty of violating the directions of the APAT issued in a
batch of Original Applications and as a result, has
imposed a punishment of simple imprisonment for a
period of two months on each of the contemnors along
with fine of Rs.2,000/-.
2. Vide order dated 14.10.2019, operation of the
impugned order had been stayed. It is directed that
subject to the appellants depositing the fine amount in the
court within two weeks from today, operation of the
impugned order shall continue to remain stayed.
11
3. Further, we have enquired from
Mr. A. Sanjeev Kumar, learned Special Government
Pleader to clarify the manner in which the Department
has complied with the order dated 30.08.2016 passed by
the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition No.32289 of
2013 arising from the final judgment dated 16.7.2013
passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in
C.C.No.1814 of 2012. Learned counsel states that he may
be permitted to file an affidavit clarifying the manner in
which the Department has complied with the order passed
by the Supreme Court. Along with the affidavit, the
appellant shall file the originally finalized selection list
with a copy to learned counsel for the respondents.
4. Needful shall be done within four weeks with
a copy to learned counsel for the respondents.
5. Meanwhile, another copy of the counter
affidavit shall be furnished by Mr. K.R.Prabhakar to
learned counsel for the appellant in C.A.No.28 of 2019.
6. List on 24.6.2021.”
A detailed affidavit has been filed by the District
Educational Officer, Mancherial before this Court
explaining the manner and method the Judgment passed
by this Court has been complied with and also complete
record was produced along with the affidavit filed before
the Hon’ble Supreme Court. As directed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, a detailed affidavit was filed before the
Hon’ble Supreme Court and after being satisfied with the
process carried out in the matter of appointments by the
State Government, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
12
disposed of the Special Leave Petition by an Order dated
13.04.2017 and the same is reproduced as under:-
“We have perused the affidavit of the Chief
Secretary, Government of Telangana dated 5th November,
2016 filed pursuant to the order of this Court dated 30th
August, 2016. On such perusal, we are not inclined to
continue to entertain the present Special Leave Petition
any further. Accordingly, the Special Leave Petition as also
all pending applications therein including the applications
for impleadment is/are disposed of.”
This Court has carefully perused the entire record
and it is nobody’s case that less meritorious persons have
been appointed depriving the individuals who have
secured more marks and therefore, this Court does not
find any reason to uphold the order passed by the learned
Single Judge. The process of recruitment is of the year
1998, persons have been appointed by the State
Government and at this juncture in the year 2021 setting
aside some appointments of 1998 does not arise.
After careful consideration of the affidavit filed by the
appellants, this Court is of the view that there has been
substantial compliance on the part of the appellants and
there was no attempt by them at any point of time to
wilfully disobey the orders passed by the Tribunal or by
the High Court or by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and
13
therefore, the order passed by the learned Single Judge
deserves to be set aside and is accordingly set aside.
In the light of the aforesaid, the Contempt Appeals
are allowed and contempt petitions are dismissed.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand
closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
_____________________________
SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ
__________________________
A.RAJASHEKER REDDY, J
20.12.2021
Pln
Comments