THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Contempt Case No.1120 of 2010 Dated:26th October, 2010 Between: Md.Moinuddin ..... Petitioner AND Md.Younus, Co-operative Electric Supply Society Ltd., Sircilla rep. by its Managing Director, Sircilla, Karimnagar District. .....Respondent *** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Contempt Case No.1120 of 2010 JUDGMENT: This contempt case has been filed by the petitioner against the respondent complaining disobedience of the order dated 05.02.2009 passed in WPMP No.2435 of 2009 in W.P.No.1922 of 2009. 2. The petitioner herein is the Line Inspector Rural, Cooperative Electric Supply Society, Siricilla, Karimnagar District. He along with 3 others filed W.P.No.1922 of 2009 seeking mandamus to the Government of A.P., represented by its Principal Secretary and 5 others to regularize their services in the post of Additional Assistant Engineer. They submitted representations, dated 28.12.2007 and 17.03.2008. They also moved WPMP No.2435 of 2009 seeking for interim direction. An interim direction came to be granted on 05.02.2009 vide WPMP No.2435, which reads as hereunder: “There shall be interim direction to the respondents to consider the representation dated 28.12.2007 and 17.03.2008 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the Rules/Regulations in force.” The petitioner herein along with 3 others filed C.C.No.864 of 2009 complaining disobedience of the order dated 05.02.2009 passed in WPMP No.2435 of 2009. The said C.C. came to be dismissed as redundant on 27.08.2009. The relevant portion of the order reads as hereunder: “Learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent submits that as per the interim directions of this Court the case of the petitioners 1 and 2 herein has been considered along with others and they have been promoted as Additional Assistant Engineers. It is further stated that the case of the petitioners 3 and 4 would be considered as and when vacancies arise and as per their seniority. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the Department is filling up the posts of Additional Assistant Engineer by drawing persons on deputation. If such is the grievance, the petitioners have to workout their remedies by way of separate proceedings. As seen from the memo No.CESS/Estt/D.No.788/2009, dated 24.07.2009, six persons have been promoted from the cadre of Line Inspector to the post of Additional Assistant Engineer. Of these six persons, petitioners 1 and 2 herein figured at Sl.Nos.5 and 6. It is stated in the said memo that the case of the petitioners 3 and 4 herein will be considered as and when vacancies arise. A copy of the proceedings is also placed on record. It appears the copy of the proceedings has been served on petitioners 3 and 4. Such being the situation, I am of the view that the respondents have not violated the orders passed by this Court. In that view of the matter, nothing survives in this contempt case. The Contempt Case is accordingly dismissed as redundant. No costs.” It is the grievance of the petitioner herein, who is the 4th petitioner in the Writ Petition, that his case is not considered despite the specific undertaking given by the respondents in the earlier contempt case. 3. Notice before admission came to be ordered on 06.08.2010. 4. The respondent entered appearance through a counsel and filed counter-affidavit. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that subsequent to the disposal of the earlier contempt case, bye-laws of the Society have been amended and as per the amended bye-laws, the petitioner does not possess requisite qualification for promotion to the post of Additional Assistant Engineer and therefore, his case is not considered. Para.6 of the counter-affidavit needs to be noted and it is thus: “In reply to para 4 & 5 of the affidavit, it is submitted that it is correct one Sri Ch.Anjaneyulu, AAE was retired from service on 31.12.09 but even before arising the said vacancy the commissioner for cooperative societies passed an order in proceedings No.2044/2009 RESCO dt.14.12.09 informing us not to effect promotions in the society. Therefore, the said vacancy was not filled up with the petitioner at that point of time. Further the petitioner was also made an application to the Registrar and Commissioner for Cooperative Societies to call back the above proceedings dt.14.12.2009 but the Registrar and Commissioner for Coop. Societies simply forwarded the application to the District Cooperative Officer vide its Proceedings No.20441/2009/RESCO, dt.10.5.2010. Thereafter, District Cooperative Officer enclosing the application of petitioner and proceedings dt.10.5.10 requested us take necessary action on the representation of the petitioner. Further in view of the above and in view of pendency of W.P.No.21731/09 filed by the petitioner we could not effect the promotion as the issue regarding his promotion is pending before this Hon’ble Court in another proceedings initiated by the petitioner. I further submit that in the meanwhile Bye-laws were amended w.e.f. 9-7-10 and as per the amended Bye-laws the petitioner is not eligible to be promoted to the post of AAE. I submit that the petitioner is persuading the matter before this Hon’ble Court by initiating separate proceedings i.e. W.P.No.21731/09 and W.P.No.1080/10. I further submit that it is not correct that I deliberately flouted the orders of this Hon’ble Court and committed breach of undertaking. I submit that I never flouted the order of this Hon’ble Court and committed any breach of undertaking and I will be abide by the order of this Hon’ble Court and I have no intention to disobey the orders of this Hon’ble Court. In those circumstances, this contempt case is liable to be dismissed.” 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in the earlier contempt case, the respondent has given undertaking that he would consider the case of the petitioner herein in the next vacancy, which arose on 01.01.2010, consequent on the retirement of Ch.Anjaneyulu on 31.12.2009 and therefore, the case of the petitioner ought to have been considered in the said vacancy and non- consideration of the petitioner’s case in the said vacancy amounts to violation of the undertaking given by the respondent in the earlier contempt case. Learned counsel refers the proceeding dated 03.04.2009 issued by the Managing Director, CESS, Sircilla, wherein, the retirement of Ch.Anjaneyulu, Additional Assistant Engineer has been indicated as 31.12.2009. By referring the proceedings, the learned counsel contends that the case of the petitioner ought to have been considered in the vacancy arose consequent on the retirement of Ch.Anjaneyulu. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that amendment of bye-laws came to be initiated on 23.09.2009 and resolution to that effect came to be passed and proposals were sent for approval and in the meanwhile, certain correspondence went on between the Society and the Commissioner and ultimately, the bye- laws came to be amended on 09.07.2010 and the same has been given effect. A further submission has been made that as per the amended bye-laws, the petitioner does not possess the requisite qualification for promotion to the post of Additional Assistant Engineer and therefore, the respondent has not violated the orders passed by this Court in WPMP No.2435 of 2009 in W.P.No.1922 of 2009. 7. I make it clear that the interim order is to consider the representations dated 28.12.2007 and 17.03.2008 and pass appropriate orders. In the earlier contempt case, the respondent stated in the counter-affidavit filed therein that the case of the petitioner herein would be considered as and when next vacancy arises. There is no doubt that vacancy in the post of Additional Assistant Engineer has arisen consequent on the retirement of Ch.Anjaneyulu on 31.12.2009. Even before the retirement of the Ch.Anjaneyulu, resolution was passed proposing certain amendments to the bye-laws. Ultimately, bye-laws came to be amended with effect from 07.09.2010. As per the bye-laws, the petitioner does not possess the requisite qualifications to promote him to the post of Additional Assistant Engineer. Therefore, I am of the view that the respondent has not violated the order dated 05.02.2009 passed by this Court in WPMP No.2435 of 2009 in W.P.No.1922 of 2009. 8. Accordingly, this contempt case is dismissed. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:26th October, 2010. Cs THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Contempt Case No.1120 of 2010 Dated:26th October, 2010