IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI CONTEMPT CASE NO. 783 OF 2025 DATED 12.12.2025 Between:

Thoviti Ramu.

…. Petitioner And Sri N.Balram, S/o.Hunya, Aged abut 46 years, Occ:Chairman & M.D., The Singareni Colleries Company Limited, Registered Office Kothagudem Colleries (PO) 507 101, Bhadradri- Kothagudem District and Another.

…Respondents

ORDER

This contempt case is filed alleging non-compliance of directions of this Court in W.P.No.590 of 2023, dated

29.04.2025.

2. The learned counsel for the contempt petitioner submitted that the contempt petitioner is the petitioner (in W.P.No.590 of 2023) in the batch of writ petitions, which have been disposed of by an common order dated 29.04.2024, directing the respondents to consider the cases of the petitioners therein for appointment to the post of Junior Assistants, on the ground that they were appointed as Surveyors and that they have executed a bond that they would render service of five years and since the bond period has not lapsed, they cannot be allowed to be appointed as Junior Assistants. This Court has considered the said contentions and observed that having permitted the petitioners to participate in the examination and having found them to be meritorious, the respondent company cannot now turn around and submit that they cannot be appointed since they have not completed the contract period. It is stated that thereafter, the respondents have considered the candidature of ten candidates from the merit list except the petitioner herein and have appointed six members as Junior Assistants as out of nine, three members have joined in a higher post and therefore, they have not opted and others are working. Since the petitioner has not been considered at all alleging disobedience of the directions of the Court, this Contempt Case has been filed.

3. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents has filed a counter affidavit stating that the petitioner has not come within the zone of consideration on his merit and hence he could not be considered for appointment.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to argue the matter on merits.

5. However, this Court is of the opinion that the respondents have considered the case of the petitioner on merits and have found him not eligible to be appointed and the said decision would have to be challenged by the petitioner in another writ petition but it cannot be decided in this contempt petition. Therefore, this Contempt Case is closed with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order of the authorities dated

19.07.2025. There shall be no order as to costs.

6. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stand closed.

____________________________ JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI Date: 12.12.2025

bak