Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
C.Balaiah vs Sri A.V.Dharma Reddy on 29 October, 2024
APHC010189122024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA
PRADESH
[3457]
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF OCTOBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 3626/2024
Between:
C.Balaiah and Others ...PETITIONER(S)
AND
Sri A V Dharma Reddy and Others ...CONTEMNOR(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
Sri. K.Raghu Veer
Counsel for the Contemnor(S):
Sri. Anup Koushik Karavadi
The Court made the following Order :
This contempt case is filed seeking to punish the respondents
under Section 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for
their willful and deliberate disobedience of the Orders passed by
this Courts on 31.01.2024 in WP.No.8390 of 2008.
2. The petitioners filed the writ petition challenging the action of the
Tirumala Tirupati Devastanam, Tirumala in not registering the
B.Tech Degree obtained by the petitioners from the Institute of
Advance Studies in Education (Deemed University), Rajasthan.
//2//
3. This Court after considering the matter on merits allowed the writ
petition and directed the respondents to extend all service benefits
to the petitioners as they would be eligible for. It was within the
domain of respondents to follow the roster of seniority. The date of
ratification of the degree obtained by the petitioners was directed
to be considered for extension of service benefits.
4. Sri.K.G.Krishna Murthy, learned Senior Counsel submits that in
pursuance of the directions of this Court the respondents have
issued proceedings dated 29.03.2024, whereby the petitioners
were informed that their cases would be considered for promotion
as per their turn in confirmed seniority. The learned senior counsel
submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Orissa Lift Irrigation
Corporation Limited Vs. Rabi Sankar Patro and others1 in the
clarification sought by some of the applicants, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court clarified that those who could not pass in the first
attempt were given one more opportunity. The petitioners passed
the AICTE-UGC Examination in the second attempt in tune with
the clarification order passed in MA.No.38 of 2018 in
CA.No.17907 of 2017, dated 22.01.2018. The learned senior
counsel submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had directed
restoration of the benefits and advantages which were extended
(2018) 1 SCC 468
//3//
to the employees prior to the passing of the Judgment. The
petitioners were converted as Assistant Executive Engineers
(Electrical) on 13.10.2017.
5. It is further submitted that the petitioners qualifications stand on
par with other Engineers recruited in the 1st respondent and as
such are entitled for all the benefits including promotions. In
pursuance of the Judgment, the petitioners submitted a
representation on 20.02.2024 and 22.03.2024. The 1st respondent
issued proceedings dated 29.03.2024 by informing the petitioners
that the order of the Court has been complied and implemented.
6. The learned senior counsel submits that the 1st petitioner has
attained the age of superannuation on 30.09.2024, the 3 rd
petitioner had already attained the age of superannuation during
pendency of writ petition, the 2nd petitioner would be the
beneficiary of the order of this Court, however, the illogical
proceedings dated 29.03.2024 were issued denying the promotion
and service benefits to the petitioners. It is also submitted that the
1st respondent follows the APSEB Service Regulations for
promotions and as per APSEB Rules the ratio between the direct
recruitment and conversion from Assistant Engineer to Assistant
Executive Engineer is 50:50, as such the petitioners ought to have
been extended the service benefits and promotion as directed by
//4//
this Court. It is also submitted by the learned senior counsel that
the stand of the 1st respondent, that they are following the R&B
Regulations where the ratio is 90:10 is false and misleading. The
learned senior counsel further submits that the proposal sent by
the 1st respondent to the Government for adopting the R&B
Service Rules and Regulations is not notified as on date. In such
circumstances, the respondents ought to follow the APSEB
Service Regulations. As per the existing regulations, the ratio is
50:50. It is submitted that the 2nd respondent is coming in the way
of implementation of the orders and as such he is arrayed as a
party in the contempt case though he is not arrayed as a party in
the writ petition. The learned senior counsel submits that there
was no direction from this Court to pass speaking orders.
7. He further submits that, on the contrary there is a positive
direction from this Court for the respondents to comply. The
proceedings dated 29.03.2024 would indicate the stand of the
respondents in categorically and with a deliberate intention to
disregard the directions of this Court in the writ petition. Such
willful disobedience would attract the provisions of Section 10 to
12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and prays for the
punishment of the respondents.
//5//
8. Sri.O.Manohar Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the
respondents, submits that, there is no contempt committed by the
respondents either wilfully or unknowingly of the orders of this
Court. He further submits that the ratio followed by the
respondents as on the date of passing of the order by this Court
was in accordance with the R&B Service Regulations by following
90:10 ratio and the GOMs.No.128, dated 09.03.1998 was issued
adopting the Service Regulations of Transport, Roads and
Building Department. The learned senior counsel further submits
that the petitioners were given conversion from the cadre of
Assistant Engineer (Electrical) to the cadre of Assistant Executive
Engineer (Electrical) with effect from 13.10.2017. The directions of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation
Limited Vs. Rabi Sankar Patro and others were scrupulously
followed.
9. The learned senior counsel further submits that, the petitioners
passed the examination conducted by AICTE-UGC in December,
2018. The repeated assertion of the learned senior counsel
appearing for the petitioners that the petitioners ought to be
extended the service benefits from 18.07.2007 (the date of
issuance of provisional certificate) is incorrect and not in
accordance with the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
//6//
in the matter of Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited Vs. Rabi
Sankar Patro and others. It is submitted that the act of the 2 nd
respondent in passing the proceedings dated 29.03.2024 cannot
be held as contemptuous.
10. Heard both the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
parties. Perused the order passed by this Court in writ petition and
the following issue is framed for consideration.
(i) Issue No.1 : Whether the respondents have committed
willful disobedience of the orders of this
Court in WP.No.8390 of 2008 ?
(ii) Issue No.2 : Whether the respondents are liable for
punishment under Section 10 to 12 of
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 ?
11. The petitioners have ratified their qualification on the date of
passing the AICTE-UGC Examination in the 2nd attempt in the
examination conducted for the second time in December, 2018.
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation
Limited Vs. Rabi Sankar Patro and others (supra1) held at para
57 and 58 as follows ;
57.Having found the entire exercise of grant of ex-post-
facto approval to be incorrect and illegal, the logical course
in normal circumstances would have been not only to set
aside such ex-post-facto approvals but also to pass
consequential directions to recall all the degrees granted in
pursuance thereof in respect of Courses leading to award
of degrees in Engineering. However, since 2004 UGC
Guidelines themselves had given liberty to the concerned
Deemed to be Universities to apply for ex-post-facto
//7//
approval, the matter is required to be considered with
some sympathy so that interest of those students who
were enrolled during the academic sessions 2001- 2005 is
protected. Though we cannot wish away the fact that the
concerned Deemed to be Universities flagrantly violated
and entered into areas where they had no experience and
started conducting courses through distance education
system illegally, the over bearing interest of the concerned
students persuades us not to resort to recall of all the
degrees in Engineering granted in pursuance of said ex-
post-facto approval. However, the fact remains that the
facilities available at the concerned Study Centres were
never checked nor any inspections were conducted. It is
not possible at this length of time to order any inspection.
But there must be confidence and assurance about the
worthiness of the concerned students. We, therefore,
deem it appropriate to grant some chance to the
concerned students to have their ability tested by
authorities competent in that behalf. We, therefore, direct
that all the degrees in Engineering granted to students who
were enrolled during the academic years 2001 to 2005
shall stand suspended till they pass such examination
under the joint supervision of AICTE-UGC in the manner
indicated hereinafter. Further, every single advantage on
the basis of that degree shall also stand suspended.
58 .The AICTE is directed to devise within one month from
the date of this judgment modalities to conduct appropriate
test/tests both in written examination as well as in
practicals for the concerned students admitted during the
academic sessions 2001-2005 covering all the concerned
subjects. It is entirely left to the discretion of AICTE to
come out with such modalities as it may think appropriate
and the tests in that behalf shall be conducted in the
National Institutes of Technology in respective States
wherever the students are located. The choice may be
given to the students to appear at the examination which
ideally should be conducted during May- June, 2018 or on
such dates as AICTE may determine. Not more than two
chances be given to the concerned students and if they do
not pass the test/tests their degrees shall stand recalled
and cancelled. If a particular student does not wish to
appear in the test/tests, the entire money deposited by
such student towards tuition and other charges shall be
//8//
refunded to that student by the concerned Deemed to be
University within a month of the exercise of such option.
The students be given time till 15th of January, 2018 to
exercise such option. The entire expenditure for
conducting the test/tests in respect of students who wish to
undergo test/tests shall be recovered from the concerned
Deemed to be Universities by 31.03.2018. If they clear the
test/tests within the stipulated time, all the advantages or
benefits shall be restored to the concerned candidates. We
make it clear at the cost of repetition that if the concerned
candidates do not clear the test/tests within the time
stipulated or choose not to appear at the test/tests, their
degrees in Engineering through distance education shall
stand recalled and cancelled. It goes without saying that
any promotion or advancement in career on the basis of
such degree shall also stand withdrawn, however any
monetary benefits or advantages in that behalf shall not be
recovered from them.
13. The petitioners were also enrolled during the academic sessions
2001 to 2005 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in order to
safeguard the interest of those students granted an opportunity to
all those students who were enrolled during the academic years
2001 to 2005 to clear the examination conducted by AICTE-UGC
and till then their certificates stood suspended.
14. The petitioners could not pass the AICTE-UGC examination in the
first attempt and could only pass in the second attempt in the
examination conducted in December, 2018. The petitioners were
promoted with effect from 13.10.2017 much prior to the passing of
the judgment in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited case.
The benefit extended to the petitioners with effect from 13.10.2017
was suspended till they passed the examination and ratified their
//9//
certificates in December, 2018. The petitioners were restored their
service benefits in terms of the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court soon after they passed the AICTE-UGC examination.
15. The proceedings dated 05.12.2017 issued by the 1st respondent,
the petitioners were reverted from the cadre of Assistant
Executive Engineer (Electrical) to the cadre of Assistant Engineer
(Electrical). These proceedings were issued in pursuance of the
directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Orissa Lift Irrigation
Corporation Limited case.
16. The certificates obtained by those students who were admitted
during the year 2001 to 2005 in the Institute of Advance Studies in
Education (Deemed University), Rajasthan were not considered
until the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court subject to the
candidates passing the AICTE-UGC Examination. Those
certificates stood ratified as on the date of passing the AICTE-
UGC Examination. Those students who could not pass the
examination in two attempts, their certificates would not be
recognized or considered. Passing of the examination conducted
by AICTE-UGC would not entitle the candidates to claim
ratification of their degree from the date of passing the
examination conducted by the Institute of Advance Studies in
Education (Deemed University), Rajasthan and issuance of
//10//
provisional certificate. The Hon'ble Supreme Court directed
restoration of service benefits if any granted to those employees
who were granted the benefit of the degree and extended service
benefits.
17. The petitioners were restored their service benefits soon after they
passed the AICTE-UGC examination as mandatory and as such
this Court finds that there is no violation of order passed in
WP.No.8390 of 2008 by the respondents.
18. This Court finds that the proceedings dated 29.03.2024 issued by
the 2nd respondent do not construe of having committed any
contempt of the order of this Court.
19. Accordingly, this Court finds that no act of contempt is committed
by the respondents and accordingly issues 1 and 2 framed by this
Court in the above case are answered in negative and
consequently the contempt case is dismissed. There shall be no
order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________
JUSTICE HARINATH.N
KGM
//11//
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH. N
Dated 29.10.2024
KGM
