IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, the 21st day of April, 2011 Present: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR C.C.No. 222 of 2011 Between: R.M.Gowri …Petitioner and Smt.K.Damayanthi, IAS., The APSWREI Society, Hyderabad and others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR C.C.No. 222 of 2011 O r d e r: The petitioner is a junior Assistant-cum-Typist in A.P. Social Welfare Residential School, Etcherla, Srikakulam District. Along with seven others she raised the question regarding regularization of her service. It would appear that this Court passed orders directing the Government to consider regularization of the service of various employees, including the petitioner. 2. It is the case of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been isolated as the person responsible for the litigation against the government and that vindictive action has been taken against her. An order was passed by the first respondent on 27.12.2010 directing the third respondent to remove the petitioner from service. The said order was served upon the petitioner, which is evident not only from the record produced by the learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents, but also in view of the admission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. It is the case of the learned counsel for the petitioner that precisely in view of the service of notice upon the petitioner with reference to proceedings dated:27-12-2010 of the first respondent, the petitioner filed the writ petition. Indeed, when the writ petition came up before me during winter vacation, I passed an interim order directing both sides to maintain status quo. The said order was passed on 6-1-2011. Contending that the respondents have violated the interim order, the petitioner came forward with this contempt case. 4. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents produced the Attendance Register showing that the petitioner, indeed, signed in the Attendance Register on 1-1-2011. But, the Attendance Register contain an endorsement that the petitioner was removed from service in view of the proceedings dated:27.12.2010 passed by the first respondent. It is the claim of the learned standing counsel for the respondents that when the petitioner was removed from service on 1-1-2011, continuation of the petitioner in service would not arise on the ground of the status quo order. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that an order ought to be passed by the third respondent in terms of the instructions issued by the first respondent on 27.12.2010 and that till the petitioner is removed from service by an order, the petitioner is deemed to be in service. I am afraid that when the respondents have taken the stand that in view of the order dated:27.12.2010 the services of the petitioner were removed and that when a copy of the order dated:27.12.2010 was served upon the petitioner, the petitioner is deemed to have been removed from service with effect from 1.1.2011. 6. I may consider the alternative. It may be assumed that the petitioner has not been removed from service. Even then, the status quo order passed by me on 6.1.2011 cannot work out in favour of the petitioner, when the respondents had refused to permit the petitioner to appear for duty. Consequently prevention of the petitioner to appear for the duty after the order by me on 6.1.2011 cannot be considered to be any act of contempt by respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Indeed, the merits of the proceedings dated:27.12.2010 will come up for consideration in the main writ petition. So far as the contempt case is concerned, I consider that prima facie the respondents have not committed any contempt. 7. Consequently the contempt case is closed. No costs. __________________ K.G. SHANKAR, J. Date:21-04-2011 *BVS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR C.C.No. 222 of 2011 21—04--2011