T. Gopal v. 1. Sri. Musharaff Ali Faruqui

that the petitioner had challenged the action of the rcspondent No.4 in not considering the petitioner for the post of Junior Assistant-cum-computer operator by imp lementing rhe Presidentizrl order for the notified posts i^ the notification No.3 of 2olg, dated 28-o9.tzol9 as illegal and arbitrar5r. This court had allowecl the writ petition directing the respondents to considr:r and issue appointment orders to the ) )\ a Ir I 2 petitioner herein according to his merit and without reference to the Presidential Order issued by the respondent No.1 with all consequential benefits. He submitted that though the petitioner \ ras more meritorious than other candidates appointed 1n Sangareddy District, his case has not been considered for appointment and therefore, the present Contempt Case has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent No.l has relied upon the averments in the couriter affidavit stating that aggrieved by the order of this Court in W.P.No.26676 of 2021, a Writ Appeal in W.A.No.1127 of 2024 was filed and the Division Bench of this Court, vide order dated 2l .L I .2024, disposed of the sarne, directing the appellants therein to consider the case of the respondent No.l therein for the post of Junior Assistant-cum-Computer Operator against the unlilled vacancy, if any. It is submitted that, thereafter, the I -t\it 3 case of the petitioner has been considered as per his online application and it was observed that all the vacan,:ies which were notified in the Sangareddy circle, for which the writ petitioner is eligible, have been filled up. It is submitted that the writ petitioner has secured 56 merks and has secured 18th rank in Sangareddy Distric:t and 30 vacancies have been notified, out of which the writ petitioner is eligible to be considered in 14 vacancies of OC and 2 vacancies of the ST commr-lnity and out of 2 vacattcies earmarked for the ST cornmunity, olle vacancy is reserved for ST(W) and the other ST vacancy was also filled up by one Taravath Nagaraju. It is also stated that all the 'OC' vacanc ies were filled up and there are no unfilled vacancies available to consider the candidature of the writ pe:titioner. Accordingly, the petitioner was issued the speaking orders dated 29.03.2025. It is stated that the rer;pondents have not deviated or disobeyed the 4 directions of this court and that the orders of this Court have been complied with and he also tendered an unconditional apologr for the lapses, if any, 1n complying with the orders of this court. Along with the counter affidavit is filed the copy of the order of Writ Appeal in W.A.N o.1127 of 2024, dated 2L.11.2024 and also the Speaking Order dated 29.O3.2025.

4. Learned counsel for the petiticlner, however, submitted that there is wilful disobedience on the part of the respondents and he has d.rawn the attention of this court to the interim order of this court dated O4.O4.2O22, observing that any appointment made shall be subject to the further orders of this Court and also the ord.er dated 22.04 .2022 directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to undergo the proficiency test in computers and that the petitioner shall however not claim anJ equities. Thus, according to him, the appointments made during the pendency of '11 5 the writ petition were sub.ject to the outcome of the writ petition and the writ petition was ultimately allow'ed and in order to do complete justice to the petitioner, the respondents ought to have considered his case for appointment since he is more meritorious and has secured more marks than the persons who were appointed under the 'ST' quota.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner had submirted that the petitioner secured more marks than a,ny of the persons who have been appointed in Sangareddy District. Therefore, the learned standing counsr:l for the respondents was directed to produce the dr:tails of all the candidates who have been appointed in Sanga Reddy District and accordingly, the list har; been furnished and on perusal of the same, it is noticed that no 'OC' candidate who has secured lesser marks than the petitioner has been appointed \o and the petitioner could have thus been considered T ,I I 6 only against sT(G) vacancy against which one Taravath Nagaraju has been aPPointed'

6. Learned counsel for the p-etitioner relied upon Rule 27 of the Telangana High Court Rules to submit that in order to do complete justice to the petitioner, this Court can pass any orders in the contempt case as well. He relied upon the orders of this court in L.P.A.No. 1 0f 2020, dated 02.03.2020, wherein the said Rule has been considered and it has been observed thus:

11. This Rule 27 is specific to the State of Andhra Prad.esh (now Telangana). Hence, the judgments of the Hon'ble supreme court relied by the appellant are not applicable io the facts of the present case. Duen in the ibr.n"" of this specific Rule, it is trite to state that the High court does haue tLe power to pass orders in the interest of justice.

15. This Diuision Bench in C.A-No'SL of 2019 (Ch.Sudhakar Raju u. M. Ramadeui (Died per L'rs') and others), d.ated 13.11.2019, has held as under:- This Court has ample power to see ttnt the orders passed bg the court are implemented" in its true letter and spirit and to do justice to the parties. No person or authoritg can cause ang obstruction or an impediment be allouted. which utill result in tampering utith the administratio n of justice. / ":r) 7

16. In uiew of the aboue law laid down bg the Hon'ble Suoreme Courl as well as Rule 27 of the Rules of High Court of Andhra Pradesh, tttis Court has ample power to see that the orclers passed by the Court are implemented in true letter and. spirit and do complete justice to the parties. The learned Single Ju,7ge was legallg pstified in directing the olficial respondents to ,Tispose of the appltcation pending beforg them under B.R.S. AnC the appellants cannot be aggrieued by the said direction. 7. Thus, according to the learned counsel for the potitioner, in order to do complete justice, this Court should interfere and pass orders directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner to one of the post of Junior Assistant-cum-Computer Operator in Sanga Reddy District.

8. Learned Standing Counsel for respondents/ contemnors, on the other hand, relied upon the order of this Court in W.P.No. LSS9T of 2O2O and Lratch wherein a similar issue has been considt:red in detail and at Para 4l thereof, it was observt:d that only ln the left over vacancies and t {racancles which were reserved for the successful candidates as directed by the court, the respondents I 8 were directed to consider for appointment as Junior Linemen on the basis of their merit and rule of social reservation subject to their qualifying in the pole climbing test irrespective of their local area. It is submitted that, in this writ petition also the issue is covered by the decision of this Court in the batch of writ petitions in W.P.No. 15597 of 2O2O dated 29 .O2.2O24 and therefore, there was a direction to consider the case of the petitioner also for appointment in accordance with his merit. He also referred to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal that his case shall be considered only against the unfilled vacancies and as there were no unfilled vacancies, the petitioner could not be considered for appointment. Therefore, according to him, there is no Contempt of Court committed by the respondent Corporation. /'1 9 t). Further, he relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kunhayammed and Others Vs. State of Kerala and Othersl for the proposition that when the Single Judges' order has been rnodified by the order of the Division Bench, then, it is the order of the Division Bench which is surviving and the order of Single Judge gets subsumed thereunder and if at all the petitioner is aggrieved, he shoulcl file a contempt case before the Division Bench. For the very same proposition, he placed reliance upon the order of this Court in W.A.M.P.No.423 of 2013, dated 14.O2.2O13 in W.A.No.4B of 2O13. Further, he placed reliance upon the decision of the three Judge Bench of calcutta High court in the case of sailesh Kuma:r Vs. Smitha.R. and Another2, for the proposition that where the Single Judges' order is confirnred by the Division Bench, then the Contempt ' 1zooo1 6 scc 3s9 2 2023 SCC Online Oal I I52 ) ) 4 10 case would lie for non-compliance of the single Jud.ges, order, but in any other case of modification or cancellation, it gets subsumed in the order in writ Appeal.

10. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this court finds that during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner was protected by the order that any appointment would be subject to the outcome of the writ petition and thereafter, the writ petition was allowed, ilirecting the respondents to consider the case of the petitiOner for appointment on the basis of his merit. However, the respondents have filed a Writ Appeal before this court and the Division Bench had directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner against the unfilled vacancies. The ord"er of this Court has thus got subsumed in the order of the Division Bench in the yt t Appeal. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim II \ I 11 appoi.:rtment on the basis of the order of this Court alone. Further, oS contended by the learned counsel for th,: respondents, where a single Judge's order has been rnodified by the Division Bench, it is the order of the D,ivision Bench which is surviving and if the petitioner is aggrieved, he should file contempt case before the Division Bench and its only where the order of the Single Judge is confirmed by the Division Bench, that tire Contempt Case would lie before the Single Judge Further, the interim orders of this Court would be applicable only during the pendency of the writ petitio n and would lapse as soon as the final orders are parssed. 1 1. In this case, since the final order of this Court got subsumed in the order of the Division Bench, this Court is of the opinion that the Contempt Case cia.nnot be adjudicated by this Court at this stage. \ t I L2 t2. The Contempt Case is accordingly closed However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to file the Contempt Case before the Division Bench of this Court if it so desires. There shall be no order as to costs.

13. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. SD'. P.C H.NAGABHUSHAM DEPUTY REGI /TRUE COPYI' SECTION OFFICER To, t. bne CC to Sri Prabhakar Chikkudu' Advocate [OPUC] 2. Two CD CoPies W NVB/PSL I Il,i : l I l t: I I , t i .i / / HIGH COURT DATED:2,410912025 ORDER CC.No.13198 of 2024 c\, o ,J * I5I B L 2026 * CLOSINGI THE CONTEMPT GASEp )h \ \6 I , . -:':' 1_.