HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR Contempt Case No.576 of 2014 Date: 20-10-2014 Between Aided Bapuji High School, Krishnapura, Hanamkonda, Warangal District, Rep. by its Secretary M.Raghavulu; and another … Petitioners and S.Vijaya Kumar, DEO, Warangal … Respondent HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR Contempt Case No.576 of 2014 Judgment:
The petitioners seek to impose punishment upon the 3rd respondent in W.P.No.27112 of 2009/District Educational Officer, Warangal District, Warangal for committing contempt of the order of the Court dated 20-8-2013. The alleged contemnor filed counter claiming that the order of the Court has been complied with and that there was no contempt on the part of the sole respondent in the contempt petition.
2. The 1st petitioner sought the approval of the respondent herein for the promotion of the 2nd petitioner as School Assistant. The respondent herein, who is the 3rd respondent in the writ petition, rejected the request through order dated 24-4-2007 on the ground that Government of Andhra Pradesh imposed a ban through Memo No.12080/COSE/A2/2004-4, dated 20-10-2004.
Through orders in W.P.No.9503 of 2005 and batch, dated 30-7-2013, it was held that Memo dated 20-10-2004 was ultra vires; the Memo was consequently set aside.
3. As a sequel, W.P.No.27112 of 2009 was allowed. The respondent herein was directed to consider the representation of the 1st petitioner to approve the promotion of the 2nd petitioner as School Assistant in the aided vacancy and to pass appropriate orders.
The respondent herein passed orders. Claiming that the order in W.P.No.27112 of 2009 was not given effect to, the present contempt petition was laid by the petitioners in the writ petition arraying the 3rd respondent in the writ petition as the sold contemnor. The sole respondent claimed that on 29-5-2014, proceedings in Rc No.6483/C5/2013 were issued by the respondent rejecting the request of the applicant. The learned Government Pleader for the respondent submitted that as the representation of the 1st petitioner was considered and was rejected, there was no contempt on the part of the respondent and that the contempt petition is liable to be dismissed. The learned counsel for the petitioners, on the other hand, submitted that the order of the Court has not been complied with in its spirit and mere passing of the order holding that it has considered the representation and has rejected the same is not tantamount to complying with the directions of the Court.
4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that a positive direction was issued by the Court to the respondent. The order of the Court is a direction to the respondent herein to consider the representation of the 1st petitioner. The Court did not give a positive direction that the representation of the 1st petitioner should be approved by the respondent.
The issue is open for the respondent. The respondent is expected to consider the representation of the 1st petitioner in proper lines and pass appropriate orders.
5. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the respondent passed a speaking order rejecting the representation of the 1st petitioner. It is not as though a one line order was passed by the respondent.
The learned Government Pleader submitted that the respondent considered various aspects including the rationalization and ultimately rejected the representation of the 1st petitioner. She claimed that direction of the Court in effect has been complied with.
6. The petitioners must show that the order of the Court has not been complied with and that such non-compliance was deliberate. In the present case, where the respondent was directed to consider the representation and where the respondent considered the representation of the 1st petitioner and passed a speaking order, I am constrained to conclude that the respondent has complied with the directions of the Court.
If the conclusions arrived at by the respondent through orders dated 29-5-2014 are perverse, fresh cause of action arises. So far as the orders in W.P.No.27112 of 2009 are concerned, issuing proceedings dated 29-5-2014 through a reasoned order cannot be treated as not complying with the directions of the Court.
I do not agree with the claim of the petitioners that the respondent committed contempt of Court. I therefore see no merits in this petition. This contempt petition accordingly is dismissed. Needless to state that the petitioners are at liberty to work out fresh remedies to which they are otherwise entitled to.
20th October, 2014.
Dr. K.G.SHANKAR, J.
Ak HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR Contempt Case No.576 of 2014 20th October, 2014. (Ak)