The Court emphasized the importance of complying with court orders and held that non-compliance without a valid reason is contemptuous.

JUDGMENT

U.Durga Prasad Rao, J. - In W.P.No.26285/2010 the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of andhra Pradesh passed the following order dated 03.10.2018:

'accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing respondents Nos.1 and 2 to consider the case of the petitioners for absorption into grant-in-aid vacancies, if they were appointed in accordance with the rules and their appointments were approved by respondents Nos.1 and 2, by duly taking into account the orders passed in W.P.No.14482/2006 dated 14.2.2011 and W.P.No.20036/2003 dated 13.10.2013, and pass appropriate orders, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order'.

(a) Now, the 1st petitioner filed the instant contempt case alleging that subsequent to the above order the petitioner and others made several oral representations and finally gave representation dated 31.10.2018 seeking implementation of the above order. However, no communication has been received from the respondent authorities and they have not complied with the order. The petitioner is aged 59 years and she will be retiring on 30.06.2019. The callousness of the respondents in absorbing her to the grant-in-aid vacancy causes much agony to her.

Hence, the Contempt Case.

2. The 1st respondent filed counter contending that 1st petitioner and ten others were working as unaided Lecturers in the 3rd respondent college. Subsequent to the order dated 03.10.2018 in W.P.No.26285/2010, as per the factual reports furnished by the Special Commissioner of Collegiate Education, andhra Pradesh, Vijayawada, the matter was re-examined keeping in view the order dated 03.10.2018. after careful examination of the matter, as per the rules in force vide Government Memo No.EHE01-CCEOMISC/24/2018-CE-HE dated 28.05.2019, speaking orders were passed rejecting the request of petitioner and ten others working in 3rd respondent college for regularization of their services from unaided service to grant-in-aid posts since they are not entitled for the same for the reasons mentioned in the aforesaid speaking orders. It is submitted that in the order dated 03.10.2018 this Court directed to absorb the petitioner along with others in grant-in-aid vacancy. However, it is noted that the petitioner and others did not possess the requisite qualification to be eligible to the post of Lecturer. Further, their initial appointment was not approved by the respondents 1 & 2. Hence, their case was rejected by a speaking order. as such the respondents have scrupulously complied with the order dated 03.10.2018 in W.P.No.26285/2010. Hence, the contempt case may be dismissed.

3. The 2nd respondent filed counter opposing the Contempt Case as follows:

(a) The petitioner in the present Contempt Case is one among the petitioners in W.P.No.26285/2010. She joined as unaided Lecturer in History on 18.09.1986 against unaided sections started after 01.03.1985 and she does not possess the requisite qualification of NET/SLET/Ph.D. as per UGC regulations.

(b) The Government vide Memo No.2043/CE.2/86-4 Education, dated 28.07.1986, and CCE's proceedings in Rc.No.3842/K2-4/1986 dated 18.08.1986 permitted the management of SDMS Kalasala, Vijayawada to start certain unaided courses from the academic Year 1986-87 subject to condition that there will be no additional financial commitment to Government and the petitioner in the present Contempt Case was selected and appointed as unaided Lecturer against the unaided sections started after 01.03.1985 duly following the selection procedure prescribed in terms of G.O.Ms.No.12 Education, dated 10.01.1992, with a clear direction that the posts pertaining to unaided sections / courses started after 01.03.1985 shall not be admitted to grant-in-aid as per the provisions of Section 3(b) of the a.P. Private Educational Institutions Grant-in-aid (Regulation) act, 1988 [act 22 of 1988]. The provision laid down in the act 22 of 1988 which is applicable in respec