K. Ravi Chandra Raju, vs C Hari Kiran
2021 Latest Caselaw 2749 AP

          HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI

                   MAIN CASE No.C.C.No.45 of 2021

                              PROCEEDING SHEET

Sl.                                                                    Office
                                      ORDER

No      DATE                                                           Note
7     30.7.2021 RRR, J

The petitioners had sought promotion to the post of HWO Gr-I by way of preparation of a seniority list of HWO Gr-II as per Rule 16(h) of APSSS Rules, 1996 and as per the ratio of the orders of this Court in W.P.No.7969 of 2019 and 7985 of 2019 dated 08.11.2019.

This Court by an order dated 20.10.2020 had directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for promotion in accordance with Rule 16(h) of APSSS Rules, 1996 as interpreted by its order in W.P.No. 7969 of 2019 and 7985 of 2019 dated 08.11.2019. As no orders were being passed, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of the present contempt case. The 1st respondent has filed a counter affidavit. The relevant pleadings in this counter affidavit are--

"Keeping in view of the above said court orders, instructions received from the Director, BC Welfare, A.P., Vijayawada time to time, the final seniority list of HWOs, Grade-II was prepared based on non 16(h) vide Collector's Progs.Rc.No.A1/290/2016, dated 10.11.2016 and communicated to all the concerned which is not in accordance with Rule 16(h). The Hon'ble High Court has issued interim orders in W.P.No.19282 of 2020 are contrary to the existing procedure in preparation of seniority lists of Hostel Welfare Officers Gr-II in Y.S.R.Kadapa District. Hence, the cases of the petitioners was not considered at this juncture.

Further, it is submitted that the Director, B.C.Welfare, A.P., Hyderabad has instructed that, if any court gives any order, whether interim or final and if that court is against the existing service rules, the DBCWO shall

immediately bring it to the notice of the undersigned who is the head of the department and seek necessary clarification on implementation of the court order concerned or otherwise."

A reading of the first extract of the pleadings shows that the 1st respondent, on the conclusion that the directions of this Court are contrary to existing procedure has decided not to comply with the directions of this Court.

The 2nd extract in the pleadings shows that the Director B.C.Welfare, who is the 2nd respondent contemnor herein has decided to sit in Judgment over the decisions of this Court and has directed all officers to seek necessary qualifications as to whether the orders of this Court will be implemented or not.

In these circumstances, let Form-I be issued to the 1st and 2nd contemnors.

Post on 16.08.2021 for appearance of the two contemnors.

_________ RRR, J RJS.