← Library
High Court for State of TelanganaCC/394/2016closed no costs

Sudarsi Tirupatamma, v. Punam Malakondaiah,

2016-07-25P Naveen Rao3 pages

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO CONTEMPT CASE No.394 of 2016 Dated : 25.07.2016 Between:

Sudarsi Tirupatamma W/o.B. Bhaskara Rao, Aged 33 yrs, Occu : Unemployee, R/o.D.No.1-12, Near Kothapatnam Flyover, North Street, Railway Station Road, Ongole, Prakasam District.

.. Petitioner And Punam Malakondaiah, W/o.Malakondaiah, Principal Secretary to Government, Women Development, Child Welfare and DisabledWelfare Department, Andhra Pradesh Secretariat Buildings, Saifabad, Hyderabad & 4 others.

.. Respondents This Court made the following :

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO CONTEMPT CASE No.394 of 2016 ORDER :

This Court by order dated 27.11.2015 in W.P.M.P.No.49666 of 2015 in W.P.No.38581 of 2015 directed the respondents to issue call letter and consider the petitioner for selection to the post of Anganwadi Helper for Centre No.49 at Railway Station Road, Ongole, pursuant to the notification dated 01.10.2015.

2. Alleging that the said order is violated this contempt case is filed.

3. In para No.5 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 4th respondent, it is stated that this Court passed order on 27.11.2015 and the said order was received by them on 07.12.2015. Whereas interviews were conducted on 19.11.2015. It is further stated that though selection process was completed, due to pendency of the writ petition, it was stopped at that stage and no order of appointment was issued.

4. As noticed above, the direction issued by this Court was to issue call letter. As stated by the 4th respondent in Para No.5 of the counter interviews were conducted much prior to passing of interim order. Once interviews are already conducted, the question of issuing call letter would not arise. Therefore, it cannot be said that the respondents have violated the order of this Court in not issuing the call letter.

5. Having regard to the above, the Contempt Case is closed. However, it is always open to the petitioner to raise all the contentions as available in law in the pending writ petition. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this contempt case shall stand closed.

__________________ P.NAVEEN RAO,J 25th July, 2016.

Rds