IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR AND THE HON’BLE DR JUSTICE B. SIVA SANKARA RAO CONTEMPT CASE No.1539 of 2013 BETWEEN The Differently Abled Employees Welfare Association.
…PETITIONER AND Sri P.K. Mohanty, I.A.S., Chief Secretary to Government of A.P., Secretariat, Hyderabad and another.
…RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: PARTY-IN-PERSON Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR WOMEN DEVELOPMENT & CHILD WELFARE GP FOR GAD The Court made the following order:
ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Vilas V. Afzulpurkar) Present contempt case is filed alleging that directions of this Court in PIL.No.303 of 2012 dated 05.03.2013 are not implemented.
2. In response to the notice on admission, the first respondent has filed counter affidavit and an order passed by the Central Government dated 01.07.2013 is appended to the counter affidavit. It is clear from the said order passed by the Central Government that it is issued in compliance with the directions of this Court, referred to above. Counter affidavit of the first respondent, further, states in para 11 as follows:
“11. It is respectfully submitted that, the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation, 1955 and Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Selection) Regulations, 1997 do not provide for any reservation while promotion/selection of officers to I.A.S. If at all any provision is to be made, Government of India is the competent authority to provide for such a reservation. The State Government has no jurisdiction over the matter.”
3. Since the order of this Court is thus complied with, we do not see any reason to entertain the contempt case any further.
However, petitioner submits that the said order, passed by the Central Government, does not address on other aspects raised by the petitioner. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the said order, he is always at liberty to avail appropriate remedy against the same.
Keeping in view the scope of the contempt case and since the order is complied with, the contempt case is dismissed with the liberty, as above. The miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J Dr. B. SIVA SANKARA RAO, J July 4, 2014 DSK