ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI
M.Satyanarayana Murthy, J.
Dr C Sunitha, Md (obg) & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
M. Raghavendra Rao – Respondent
Contempt Case No. 1757 of 2021
Decided On : 22-04-2022
CONTEMPT OF COURT - CONDONATION OF DELAY - [SECTION 10 TO 12 OF CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971] - Petitioners filed contempt case under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts act, 1971, to punish the contemnor - respondent for disobedience or deliberate flouting of the order dated 05.01.2021 passed by the Court in W.P.No.23501 of 2020.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners filed writ petition questioning the proceedings issued by the respondent in Rc.No.8171/E1-a/2019 dated 14.10.2020. On 05.01.2021 this Court granted interim suspension of the impugned order for a period of two (2) months. The petitioners herein are the writ petitioners, who filed the writ petition for the relief stated above alleging that they are eligible, qualified and entitled to be promoted as associate Professors OBG.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the respondent violated the order intentionally, thereby liable for punishment for the contempt of Court.
Issues: Whether the respondent violated the order intentionally?
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the respondent violated the order consciously and intentionally. The Court also held that the respondent/contemnor cannot interpret the order and give different meaning to the order passed by the Court, which is sought to be implemented, as directed by the Court and such act of the respondent/contemnor is illegal.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the contempt case and directed the Respondent/Contemnor - Dr. M.Raghavendra Rao, Director of Medical Education, andhra Pradesh, to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of three (03) months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only).
JUDGMENT
M.Satyanarayana Murthy, J. - This contempt case is filed under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts act, 1971, by the petitioners - Dr.C.Sunitha and Dr.a.Sudha Rani to punish the contemnor - respondent for disobedience or deliberate flouting of the order dated 05.01.2021 passed by this Court in W.P.No.23501 of 2020.
2. The petitioners filed writ petition questioning the proceedings issued by the respondent in Rc.No.8171/E1-a/2019 dated 14.10.2020. On 05.01.2021 this Court granted interim suspension of the impugned order for a period of two (2) months.
3. The petitioners herein are the writ petitioners, who filed the writ petition for the relief stated above alleging that they are eligible, qualified and entitled to be promoted as associate Professors OBG. Petitioner No.1 was appointed as assistant Professor OBG on 03.02.2010 and petitioner No.2 was appointed as assistant Professor OBG on 12.03.2010. Both petitioners have put in the required minimum service of 5 years in the category of assistant Professors and they are eligible to be considered and promoted as associate Professors for the panel year 2020-21. While so, the Government of andhra Pradesh has issued G.O.Ms.No.163, HM&FW dated 16.10.17 extending the Career advancement Scheme as per UGC Guidelines. accordingly, the pay scale of both the petitioners were fitted into the associate Professors pay scale vide Proceedings dated 18.01.2019 with effect from 01.09.2015. This is only a fitment of pay scale and not regular promotion as associate Professors.
4. For panel year 2018-19, there were no vacancies for the post of associate Professors in Kurnool Medical College. The Vacancy position was displayed showing as NIL for Kurnool Medical Colleges. Vacancy position was displayed to all other medical colleges, except Kurnool Medical College. For the purpose of filling up the vacancies of associate Professors for the panel year 2018-19. Respondent No.1 vide intimation dated 04.02.2019 conducted counselling which was held on 07.02.2019. accordingly, three seniors to these petitioners have attended the said Counselling and were promoted as associate Professors. They have accepted the promotions as associate professors. But when it came to joining the posts, they have not joined at the place of posting. They wanted to continue at Kurnool only. There were no vacancies of associate Professors at Kumool during the panel year 2018-19. No vacancy was shown at Kurnool. Once they have accepted the promotions they are bound to go and join at the places they were posted i.e. outside Kurnool. But deliberately they did not join.
5. For the next panel year i.e. 2019-20 also there were no vacancies of associate Professors in Kurnool Medical College. On 09.01.2020, respondent No.1 has prepared Screening Committee Proposals for the panel year 2019-20. Surprisingly, the names of the three seniors who were promoted for the vacancies of the panel year 2018-19, were again shown in the list and they figured at Serial Nos.1, 23 and 62 respectively. Respondent No.1 vide communication dated 13.10.2020 has displayed the names of persons who were promoted as associate Professors OBG and also the vacancy position. In so far as the Speciality OBG is concerned, four persons were promoted as associate Professors viz.
(1) Dr. G.S.Snigdha, assistant Professor of OBG, Kurnool Medical College, Kurnool
(2) Dr. K.Sreelatha, assistant Professor of OBG, Kurnool
(3) Dr K.Kavita,, assistant Professor of OBG, Kurnool Medical College, Kurnool and
(4) Dr T.Sudha, working at aMC Vizag.
(1) GMC anathapuramau-1;
(2) GMC Ongole (1);
(3) SMC Vijayawada-1;
(4) SCSR GMS Nellore-1.
6. Therefore, these three seniors were once again considered and promoted as associate Professors in the vacancies shown. It is significant to note that there are no vacancies at Kurnool.
7. For the panel year 2020-21, due to promotion of certain associate Professors as Professors, there arose 3 vacancies at Kurnool Medical College for the panel year 2020-
State of Jammu and Kashmir vs. Mohd. Yaqoob Khan (1992) 4 SCC 167
Kalyaneshwari vs. Union of India and others (2011) 6 SCALE 220
A party against whom an order is made has grievance, the only remedy available to him is to challenge the order by taking appropriate proceedings known to law. But it cannot be made ineffective by no....
Willful disobedience of a court order, even if based on negligence or carelessness, constitutes contempt of court and may result in imprisonment and fine.
Wilful disobedience, as an essential element of civil contempt, requires a high standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt and involves a mental element of intentional, conscious, and calculated condu....
Contempt proceedings cannot determine individual claims without prior adjudication; the court's role is limited to assessing willful disobedience of specific orders.
Contempt proceedings cannot issue substantive directions; eligibility for promotion must be determined based on established criteria, not merely participation in examinations.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.