Badavath Varun v. 1. Dr.E.Naveen Nicolas lAS

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the filing of the additional affidavit in CC No. 269512024 pending disposal of the main petition. ' :.:.:..-:{..- l; Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl N V R RAJYA LAKSHMI Counsel for the Respondent No.1: P S RAJASEKHAR (SC FOR TGPSC.) Counsel for the Respondent No.2: cP FOR SERVICES - ll Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 3 & 4: GP FOR SERVICES - I The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK CONTEMPT CASE No.2695 of 2024 ORDER: Alleging willful disobedience of the order of this Court dated I1.O9.2O24 in W.P.No.227O9 of 2024, and seeking to punish the contemnors/respondents, this Contempt Case has been hled.

2. Aggrieved by the medical examination report dated 3O.O7.2024, in pursuance of Notification No.19 12022 issued by the Public Service Commission, the petitioner had filed W.P.No.22709 of 2024, which was disposed of vide order dated 11.09.2O24. Tl:e operative portion of the said order is extracted hereunder: '5. Having regard to the submi.ssions made by learned counsel for the respective parties ald in view of the peculiar circumstances of the case, this Court is of the pima facie view that the very same Medical Board i.e., Sarojini Devi Eye Hospital, Mehdipatnam, has issued two different medical certificates, one in Apri-l 2024 tor the post of Assistant Executive Engineer uide Notification No.l2/2O22 dated O3.O9.2022, and another certihcate in July 2024 in relation to Group-lV services urde Notihcation No.I9l2O22 dated O1.12.2022, certifying the petitioner's disability as 3O7o and 4O%o respectively. Therefore, this Court deems it fit and appropriate to permit the petitioner to hle an appeal before the respondents in terms of G.O.Ms.No.31 Women Development, Child Welfare & Disabled Welfare Depaitment, dated O1.12.2OO9 within in a period of one (1) week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon receipt of the same, the respondents are directed to refer the case of the petitioner to respondent No.3-Medical Board, as per Rules, in order to re-assess the percentage of visual disability of the petitioner and furnish its report to respondent No.l. On i I I I l ! I I I i I i I PK, J C.C.:\o.269!; ol2024 receipt of the same, respondent No.1 is directr:d to take appropriate decision, strictly in accordance wirh 1aw, as expeditiously as possible. Till then, in order to trotect the interest of the petitioner, the respondents shall leserve one post of Assistant Executive Engineer pursuant to Notillcation No.1212022 dated 03.09.2022 ..rnder the Visually Haldicapped category, if still available.,,

3. Hearrl Smt. N.V.R. Rajya Lakshmi, learned c:)unsel appea_ring for the petil-ioner and Sri P.S. Raja Sekhar, Iearned litalding Counsel for Telanga na State Public Scrvice Commission, on beiralf of the respondents.

4. Learned counsel for the pelitioner submits thal the o:der of this Court was dispatched on 21.09.2024, and obtainir.Lg a copy of the same, the petitioner approached respondent Nos.1 ard 2 and hted an appeal on 24.O9 .2024 , duly enclosing a copy of the or cier of this Court dated 11.Olt.2024. Hou.ever, since the petitioner di<., not receive any information, he approached the respondents on 09.1O.2O2q, to know the status of his case but it u,as inlormcd by respr,ndent No. I that there was no direction to implement. Although respondent No.1 has received a copy of the appeal and also acknowledged the same, so far, no action has been taken thereon. It was further sut:mittecl that after notices were ordered by this Court on 2O.12.2O2,+, the petitioner received a phone call from respondent No.3 on 31.12.2024, 3 PK, J C.C.No.2695 of 2024 instructing to attend for medica.l examination ofl O2.O1.2025, which the petitioner underwent successfully. Thereafter, while the pe[itioner was waiting for the result, to his surprise, respondent No.l sent a Ietter vide Memo.No.542 /RP-2/AEE,/2022 dated 09 .O1.2025, stating that the entire recruitment for the post of AtrE is closed, arrd that the candidates present disability cannot be considered for a ciosed recruitment. However, this Court, vide order dated 1 LO9.2O24 in W.P.No.227O9 of 2024, spccihcally directed the respondents to reserve one post to protcct the intcrest oI the petitioner. The respondents are well aware of the order of this Court, yet, issued appointment orders to the selected candidates on 06.10.2024. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner alleged deliberate ald willful violation of the order of this Court dated 1 1.O9.2O24 in W.P.No.227O9 of 2024, and prayed this Court to punish the respondents.

5. Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that since the petitioner had applied for the post of AEE in pursuance of the recruitment process vide Notifrcation No.l2l2O22 under Visually Handicapped category, he was subjected to medical examination, and as per the report of the Special Medical Board dated 27.O4.2024, the petitioner's disability is at 3O7o, which is less than the requisite percentage of disability for appointment under \\ 4 PK, J (:.C.)o.269!; of 2A21 VH category. Hence, his case was rejected. Chall::nging the same, fhe petitioner filed W.P.No. IBT6S of 2O24. The.eafter, a tist of provisionally selectcd candidates was hosted by.tht Commission on O2.O8.2O24, but in view of pendency of the said ri,r t petition, it was made clear that the provisional selection list shzLll be subject to outcome of thc u,rit petition. The petitioner hled ano: her u,:it petition, vide W.P.N<r.22709 of 2024 on 19.OA.2024, but he t-rimself withdrew the earlier filed W-P.No.18765 of 2024 on I)..O9.2024.. Horvever, even before the said order, on O2.O8.2024, the Commissior-r has published a Final Selection List of AEE (Civil), and forwarc cd the unit list comprising of all relevant details and remarks to the concerned departments on 22.O8.2O24, for further action on thr.ir encl. Th,: hnal allotment rr:sulted in filling of 1154 vacancics, u,hile :ne vecancy was withheld and 25 vacancies remained unfifled, due to a lack: of etigiblc candidates. lt rvas further submitted that in comptirrnce of the order of this Court dated LI.O9.2O24 in W.p.No.227O) of 2024, the CommissiorL addressed a letter to the Superintenden t. Naidu -lJarojini Eye Hospitzrl, Hyderabad, on 20. 12.2024, reques,ting to further necessary action. It was a.lso submitted that th,: petilioner had applied for various categories of posts, viz., ADE, AE, Group-lV services, under VH category, and if he is shortlistr:d for certjficate 5 PK. J C.C.No.2695 of 2O24 verification for various posts, he will invariably be referred to the competent Medical Board for ascertaining the percentage of disability. Further, the report of the Appellate Board constituted for a particular recruitment shall only be considered. Therefore, the report of the Medical Board dated 27.O4.2O24 is itself final, as the Medical Board has aJready assessed the disability of the petitioner and the subsequent report of the Sarojini Naidu trye Hospital may lead to different problems in selection process, and a variation may also occur in respect of deformity over a period of time, depending on the iliness. It was further submitted that during the selection process of AEE, the petitioner's disability was assessed at 3Oo/o, and at that point of time, the petitioner was not eligible. However, as per the latest Medical Report dated O2.OL.2O2S, the petitioner,s disability has increased from 3Oo/o to 4Oo/o, but even prior to the order of this Court, the recruitment for the post of AEE has been completed. Therefore, the candidate's disability, which has come to 4O%o after the recruitment is completed, cannot be considered for a closed recruitment. Therefore, there is no disobedience of the order passed by this Court dated IL.O9.2O24 in W.p.No.227O9 of 2024. Hence, it was prayed to close the present contempt case. 6 PK, .] C.C.Nc.2695 of 2021

6. This (lourt has taken note of the rival submissions rrLade by the learned counsel for the respective parties.

7. Admit.tedly, this Court, in its order dated 1 1.09.2024 in W.P.No.227rl9 of 2024, categorically directed the respondents to reserve one post of AEtr under Visually Handicappecl category, ,if still available'. l\ccording to the respondents, the recruitrnent proccss for Lhe post of AEtr was completed prior to the date of _he order of this Court, and the selection list was published on r12.Og.2024 and subsequently, the appointments were also given. As; such, it can be inferred that there were subsisting VH category vacrrncies to comply with the order. Further, it is to be noted that in cr:,mpliance of the order of this Court dated 11.O9.2024 in W.p.No.227O9 of 2O2a, the petitioner was referred for re-examination by the Me,lical Iloard and the assessment was also carried out on O2.01.2O25.

8. It is clear from the above that the respondc:nts have made sincere efforts to comply with the order of this Court but they were constrained ,tnly by the fact that the recruitment process u,as alr.eady closed. As such, this court finds no winfur disobr..dienc(l or non- compliarrce of this order dated 1 1.O9.2024, by the resl:onder,ts. :r.' I a/ 7 PK, J C.C.No.2695 of 2O24

9. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has not made out any case to punish the respondents I I I i under the Contempt of Courts Act, l9Z l.

10. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed Pending misceilaleous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. No COSTS To, //TRUE COPY// Sd/- A. PRATHIMA DEPUry REGISTRAR Sff" SE FFICER

1. One CC to SRl. N V R RAJYA LAKSHMI Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to SRl. P S RAJASEKHAR (SC FOR TGPSC) Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES - ll, High Court for the State of Telangana

4. Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES - I, High Court for the State of Teldngana.

5. Two CD Copies GR/gh / HIGH COURT DATED:1110712025 ./.: '.il /l i c 1E ilIP;W * o8.. 1'_r': ' -' ,/ ORDER CC.No.2695 of 2024 CLOSING THE CONTEMPT CASE 4 ,/A2'/ 4 /q ./, * /