( 1 ) HEARD Sri S. Satyanarayana Prasad, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri Vidyasagar, Sri D. V. Seetarama Murthy, Sri D. V. Subrahmanya sarma and Smt. K. Udayasree, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting respondents.

( 2 ) SINCE the issue involved in all these Writ Petitions is common, they are being taken up together for disposal.

( 3 ) IN these writ petitions, filed at the instance of the Director, Intermediate education, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Nampally, Hyderabad, challenging the very maintainability of proceedings in the contempt applications Nos. 482/01, 865/01, 994/01, 964/01 and 962/01 arising out of the common orders passed in o. A. No. 4672/95 dated 02-12-1999 on the file of A. P. Administrative Tribunal, twin questions of importance arise for consideration are viz. , (i) whether, on the facts and circumstances, the orders of the A. P. Administrative tribunal on being challenged in a Writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of india merge with the orders passed by this Court, and therefore, no contempt proceedings would lie before the A. P. Administrative Tribunal for violation of its orders; and (ii) Whether, on the facts and circumstances, the A. P. Administrative Tribunal having entertained the contempt proceedings has any jurisdiction to pass any interim order or further ot! her orders.

( 4 ) SINCE the Counsel on either side have restricted their submissions only on the scope of the aforesaid questions without touching of the facts on either side, it is not necessary to consider on merits. However, it would suffice to take into account the chequered events leading to the filing of this writ petition.

( 5 ) ON the applications filed by the SGBT teachers working in the Tribal Welfare ashram Schools in the Tribal Welfare Department in O. A. No. 4672 of 1995 along with batch of cases, filed under Section 19 of the A. P. Administrative Tribunal act, 1985, the A. P. Administrative Tribunal disposed of the same by orders dated 02-12-1999. In the said proceedings a challenge was made to sub-rule 3 (ii) (b) of A. P. Intermediate Educational Service Rules framed in G. O. Ms. No. 302, dated 30-12-1993 and the controversy was in regard to the appointment by transfer to the post of Junior Lecturers under Rule 3 in category-8. As provided under category 1 (b) of class (c), the appointment was by transfer from amongst the school assistants, including Hindi Pandits and Munshies in grade 1 category 1 of class-D of A. P. School Educational Subordinate Service Rules or by recruitment by transfer from any other service. The contention of the applicants therein is that they are working in the said schoo! ls and therefore a provision also has to be made for their appointment. In the final orders, the A. P. Administrative Tribunal opined that 50% of the vacancies in the State in the category of Junior Lecturers were earmarked for direct recruits and the remaining 50% for recruitment by transfer to School Assistants of Andhra Pradesh School Education Subordinate Service or recruitment by transfer or from any other service as defined in Rule 2 (30) of A. P. State and subordinate Service Rules. Further, it was directed that for laying down a method for apportioning to the 50% vacancies amongst the various sub-groups and consequently lay down the norms judiciously. Thereafter, the matter was carried to this Court by the aggrieved persons in W. P. No. 21648 of 2000, which was ultimately dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court, as per the orders dated 08-03-2001 holding that having regard to the absence of provisions in the special rules, the general rules cannot be made applicable and therefore it was left open for the State that in the event the State intends to appoint teachers, who were working in the Tribal welfare Ashram School under the Social Welfare Department, they would also be eligible therefor and it was left open for the State to consider and prepare a joint seni

Click Here to Read the rest of this document