N. Jayasudha v. State Of A.P.

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTI CE P. NAVEEN RAO CONTEMPT CASE (TR) No.86 of 2017 Dated:06.07.2017 Between:

N.Jayasudha, W/o. V.Srikanth, aged 33 years, Occu: Unemployee, R/o. Plot No.102, Padmavathi Colony, Ramagiri, Nalgonda (HT No.10702546).

...Petitioner

AND State of A.P. represented by its Principal Secretary to Government, General Administration Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad - 500 022 and others.

.. Respondents The Court made the follow ing:

PNR,J CC(TR)_86_2017 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTI CE P.NAVEEN RAO CONTEMPT CASE (TR) No.86 of 2017 ORDER:

Petitioner filed O.A.No.5859 of 2013 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short, 'APAT') alleging that she was wrongly ignored for selection to the post of Lecturer in Government Polytechnic Colleges. Tribunal disposed of O.A., by order on 14.08.2013, for the reasons assigned therein, directing the 3rd respondent i.e., Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission (APPSC) to interview the petitioner by duly constituting a Committee and consider her claim for appointment to the post of Lecturer in Mechanical Engineering in Government Polytechnic Colleges. Alleging violation of the said directions, this contempt is filed.

2.

When the matter is taken up, learned Standing Counsel representing the APPSC produced a Memo No.1940/RS-38/2012, dated 19.11.2016. Vide this Memo, it is stated that petitioner did not come up for selection.

3.

Learned Standing Counsel informs the Court that in fact, this memo issued by APPSC was addressed to petitioner, which fact is denied by learned counsel for the petitioner. However, learned counsel for the petitioner states that a copy of the same was served on him. Learned Standing Counsel also produced the cut-off marks in various zones. Petitioner belongs to Zone-VI and is woman candidate. According to learned Standing Counsel, the cut-off marks for General was 306 and for General (Women) was 254 and a Non-local candidate,

PNR,J CC(TR)_86_2017 who secured 278 marks, was selected, whereas petitioner secured 226 marks. He, therefore, submits that the petitioner has not come up for selection as she secured far less marks than the last selected candidate.

4.

Having regard to these submissions, it cannot be said that there is violation, much less, wilful and deliberate violation of the orders of this Tribunal to initiate proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act. 5.

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there appears to have been deliberate wrong selection made and even though petitioner was having very high merit in the qualifying examination, she was found as not selected by awarding very low marks and wanted a direction to call for the marks secured by the petitioner in the written examination as well as in oral interview. 6.

Since this is not the issue in the O.A. and in this contempt, no direction as sought for can be granted. Since petitioner is served with a copy of the memo, dated 19.11.2016 informing the petitioner about her non-selection, it is open to the petitioner to workout her remedies as available under law.

7.

Accordingly, the Contempt Case (TR) is dismissed. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Contempt Case (TR) shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ JUSTI CE P.NAVEEN RAO Date:06.07.2017 INL