JUDGMENT :

Akula Venkata Sesha Sai, J.

1. This letters patent appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, questioning the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in CC No. 789 of 2020, dated 07.05.2021.

2. The petitioners herein, by invoking the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, filed WP No. 20031 of 2018 before this Court. The learned Single Judge of this Court, by way of common order, dated 29.08.2019, allowed the batch of writ petitions, including the writ petition filed by the petitioners herein, and directed the respondents in the writ petition to regularize the services of the writ petitioners, subject to the writ petitioners' possessing other requisite qualifications.

3. Alleging willful disobedience of the said order, the petitioners herein initiated contempt proceedings against the respondents herein, by filing Contempt Case No. 789 of 2020 under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The Registrar of Sri Padmavati Mahila Visvavidyalayam, Tirupati vide Proceedings in ROC No. SPMW/Estt./NT/E/TS/2020, dated 05.11.2020, passed a speaking order, declining to accede to the request for regularizations of the writ petitioners. The learned Single Judge vide order, dated 07.05.2021 closed the Contempt Case No. 789 of 2020 and the operative portion of the said order reads thus:

"In view of the facts and circumstances state above, as pursuant to the directions of this Court in WP No. 20031 of 2018, dated 29.08.2019, the respondents have considered the cases of the petitioners and speaking orders were passed and communicated through letters dated 05.11.2020 to each of the petitioners, this Court is of the view that there is no willful violation of the orders of this Court by the respondents.

The contempt case is, closed accordingly. No order as to costs."

4. In the above background, assailing the validity and legal sustainability of the said order passed by the learned Single Judge, present letters patent appeal has been filed.

5. Heard, Sri M. Pitchaiah, learned Counsel for appellants, Sri K.V. Raghuveer, learned Government Pleader for Education and Smt. Pulipati Radhika, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents.

6. It is contended by Sri M. Pitchaiah, learned Counsel for the appellants that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is contrary to law and inconsistent with the material placed on record. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that having directed regularization of the services of the appellants herein in the order, dated 29.08.2019 in WP No. 20031 of 2018, in a positive manner, the learned Single Judge grossly erred in closing the contempt case. It is further urged by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the learned Single Judge travelled beyond the scope of the contempt case and made observations about the entitlement of the appellants herein for the regularization.

7. On the contrary, Sri K.V. Raghuveer, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents contends that the very letters patent appeal filed by the appellants herein is not maintainable in the absence of any order of punishment passed by the learned Single Judge under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act. It is also further submitted by the learned Government Pleader that in pursuance of the orders of this Court in WP No. 20031 of 2018, the 4th respondent herein passed a speaking order on 05.11.2020, turning down the claim of the appellants for regularization of the services, as such, the learned Single Judge is justified in closing the contempt case. It is further submitted by the learned Government Pleader that the contention of the Counsel for the appellants that the learned Single Judge made observations with regard to entitlement of the petitioners for regularization, is also incorrect. In support of his submissions and contentions, the learned Government Pleader placed reliance on the judgment of the Common High Court of Andhra Pradesh in LPA