##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CONTEMPT CASE No.491 of 2025

17 APRIL, 2026 Between:

T.Venkateswarlu … Petitioner

AND T.Rajendra Prasad

…Respondent : O R D E R :

This Contempt Case is filed alleging violation of the order,

dated 22.03.2024 passed by this Court in W.P.No.18719 of 2016.

2. Heard Mr. Nayakwadi Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. G.Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel representing Ms. K.Udaya Sri, learned counsel for the respondent.

Perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had filed W.P.No.18719 of 2016 challenging his disqualification for appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) under the Hearing Impaired category and seeking re-medical examination. This Court, by an order, dated 22.03.2024, directed the petitioner to approach the respondent for reference to the State Appellate Medical Board and further directed the respondent that upon

2

satisfying the disability criteria, his case be considered for appointment, if he is otherwise eligible. Pursuant thereto, after repeated representations, the petitioner was referred to the Appellate Medical Board, which assessed his disability at 60%. However, instead of considering his candidature, the respondent issued a speaking order, dated 23.12.2024 rejecting his claim on the ground that his disability, at the time of 2015 notification, was assessed at only 13%, making him ineligible under the PH-HH category. Although the Appellate Medical Board reassessed his disability at 60% in 2024, such subsequent revision cannot be taken into account for the posts notified in the year 2015. He further submits that the said action is illegal, arbitrary and is in willful disobedience of the directions issued by this Court, leading to filing

of the present Contempt Case.

4. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the directions of this Court were duly complied with, by referring the petitioner to the Appellate Medical Board and considering his case. He further submits that as on the date of notification issued on 23.09.2015, the petitioner’s disability was only at 13%, rendering him ineligible. The subsequent assessment of 60% disability is due to age-related progressive hearing loss and cannot be considered for the earlier recruitment.

3

He further submits that the employer is the competent authority to determine the eligibility based on job requirements. As the respondent has considered the case of the petitioner, there is no willful disobedience on the part of the respondent. Since the respondent has passed a speaking order, dated 23.12.2024, rejecting the claim of the petitioner, a fresh cause of action has arisen. Therefore, the proper and efficacious remedy available to the petitioner is to challenge the said order by filing appropriate proceedings before this Court, but not by initiating contempt proceedings. In support of this contention, he relied on the judgment of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in K.Sitaram Reddy v. Ajay Jain, Dist. Collector, Ranga Reddy Dist., Hyderabad and drawn attention of this Court to paragraph No.12, wherein, it

was held as follows:

“12. In Parihar case (2 cited supra) it was held by the Apex Court that once there is an order passed by the Government on the basis of the directions issued by the court there arises a fresh cause of action to seek redressal in an appropriate forum. In Lalit Mathur vs. L.Maheswar Rao, (6) 2000 (10) SCC 285, it was held that where the High Court in a writ petition had issued a direction to consider the representation by the State Government and the direction was carried out by the State Government which had considered and thereafter rejected representation on merits, instead of challenging the order in a fresh writ petition the party had taken a recourse to contempt proceedings which did not allow as the order h