THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE NARSI NG RAO NANDI KONDA CONTEMPT APPEAL Nos.17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 and 34 of 2023

COMMON JUDGMENT

(per the Hon’ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy)

Since the issue arising in the instant appeals is one and the same, they are taken up for analogous hearing and are decided by way of this common judgment.

2. Heard Mr. Pratap Narayan Sanghi, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Avadesh Narayan Sanghi and Bathula Raj Kiran, learned counsel for the appellants, and Mr. M. Surender Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Aka Venkataramana, learned counsel for the respondents.

3. The instant appeals are filed under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). The challenge is to the common order dated 13.10.2023 passed by the Hon’ble Single Bench of this High Court in a batch of contempt cases decided analogously; lead case being C.C.No.1530 of 2019.

4. Vide the impugned common order, the Hon’ble Single Bench while hearing the batch of contempt petitions has held that the appellants herein have been found guilty of contempt and are liable to be convicted for wilful violation of the order dated

18.07.2019 passed in W.P.No.10572 of 2012.

5. The relevant material necessary for adjudicating the instant appeals are certain orders which need to be borne in mind before we proceed to decide the matter itself. The order against which the contempt petitions were filed before the Hon’ble Single Bench was one decided on 18.07.2019 in W.P.No.10572 of 2012. The necessary operative part of the said writ petition is being reproduced hereunder:

“The petitioners further contended that only after disposal of the case by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the respondents have finally filled up 193 posts in 2012 and among 193 posts, 33 posts remained unfilled, and subsequently, the respondent Corporation has filled up another 200 posts, and in the second recruitment also 17 posts remained unfilled, thus, in all, 50 posts are lying vacant. The petitioners contended that they are the next meritorious candidates and the respondents must consider their cases against the 50 non-joined vacant posts. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition directing the respondent Corporation to consider the case of the petitioners for appointment to the post of Sub-Staff (Peon) in 50 non-joined vacancies in pursuance to the notification, dated 17.07.1996.

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents had contended that the petitioners are not coming within the zone of consideration and 400 candidates were employed and that is the reason why the respondent Corporation has not considered the case of the petitioners. He further contended that if the petitioners are the next meritorious candidates and submits a representation, the respondent Corporation will consider the case of the petitioners and appropriate orders will be passed on the representation in accordance with law. Learned Standing Counsel has informed that there are only 50 posts consequent upon non-joining of selected candidates.

Having regard to the rival submissions made by the parties, this Court is of the considered view that this Writ Petition can be disposed of directing the petitioners to submit a fresh representation to the respondents within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and upon such representation being received, the respondent Corporation shall consider the case of the petitioners for appointment in the non-joined posts, if they are the next meritorious candidates in the merit list, and pass appropriate orders in eight weeks thereafter. It is needless to say that the respondent Corporation shall consider the case of the petitioners only against the 50 vacancies of non-joined posts.

With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to co