IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE NINETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI CONTEMPT CASE No. 42 OF 2010 Between: N.Naveen Reddy and 9 others ..... PETITIONERS AND Government of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Energy Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others .... RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners: Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI CONTEMPT CASE No. 42 OF 2010 O R D E R: This contempt case is filed alleging violation of the order of this Court dated 18.08.2009 in W.V.M.P.No.1750 of 2009 in W.P.M.P.No.1590 of 2009 in W.PNo.1264 of 2009, which runs as under: “ The respondents are hereby permitted to make adhoc arrangements for filling-up the posts of Assistant Divisional Engineers by treating the regular appointees in the impugned seniority list dated 1.7.2008 over the contract appointees. Such arrangement shall be made after considering the persons placed at Sl.Nos. 1 to 22 who are admittedly seniors to the writ petitioners. It is also made clear that if the number of Assistant Engineers is not enough to temporarily fill the vacancies of Assistant Divisional Engineers, the respondents are at liberty to consider the cases of the contract Engineers also. The above said arrangement shall be without prejudice to the contentions raised by the petitioners herein in the main writ petition and shall be subject to the result of the writ petition.” Heard both parties. Whereas it is alleged by the petitioners that the subsequent proceedings issued by the APCPDCL on 10.12.2009 was in violation of the above said directions of this Court, in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent, it is explained that W.P.No.2189 of 2009 filed by certain direct recruites was also pending on the file of this Court and the memo dated 10.12.2009, which was issued in accordance with the directions in the said writ petition did not run contrary to the order passed in W.P.No.1264 of 2009, dated 18.08.2009. As could be seen from the order extracted above, it was made clear by this Court that any arrangements made shall be subject to the result of the writ petition. Admittedly the main writ petition is pending and therefore, the further grievance of the petitioners, if any, can be adjudicated in the main writ petition and in my considered opinion it is not a fit matter which requires consideration in contempt proceedings. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed, leaving it open to the petitioners to move an appropriate application in the main writ petition for redressal of their grievance, if so advised. No costs. ____________ Date: 09.04.2010 G. ROHINI, J Ivd