HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CONTEMPT CASE No.1561 of 2010 Date : 25.04.2011 Between : I. Thirupal Naik. …..Petitioner And Sri Krishna Babu, Chairman & Managing Director, A.P.Power Distribution Co. Ltd., Hyderabad & others. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CONTEMPT CASE No.1561 of 2010 ORDER : This contempt case is filed alleging that the respondents have violated the directions issued by this Court in the order, dated 28th of April 2010, passed in W.P.M.P.No.9088 of 2010 in W.P.No.7045 of 2010. The petitioner claims that by virtue of his appointment as a contract labour, he is entitled for appointment as Junior Lineman pursuant to the notification issued by the respondents in 2006. By way of an interim order, dated 28.04.2010, this Court directed the respondents to consider the case of petitioner in view of the orders passed by this Court in W.A.No.1434 of 2008, dated 10.11.2009, subject to availability of vacancies which were notified in 2009. When the matter is taken up, it is submitted by the learned Standing counsel appearing for respondents that considering the case of the petitioner, by recording valid reasons, the order dated 11.04.2011 is passed in Letter No.SE/O/ATP/P.O/JAO/Adm/S-3/D.No.74/2011, rejecting the claim of the petitioner. Though it is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that as there are available vacancies and that petitioner is the only eligible candidate for appointment, there is no reason for rejecting his claim, as much as this Court has merely directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment, this Court cannot enter into the validity of the reasons recorded in the order, dated 11.04.2011, issued in Letter No.SE/O/ATP/P.O/JAO/Adm/S-3/D.No.74/2011, in this application filed under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. In view of the order, dated 11.04.2011, this Court is of the view that the respondents have complied with the directions of this Court in the order, dated 28.04.2010. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the order, dated 28.04.2010, it is open for him to question the said order, but it cannot be said that there is violation of the order of this Court. For the aforesaid reasons, this contempt case is closed. However, it is open for the petitioner to question the proceedings, dated 11.04.2011, issued in Letter No.SE/O/ATP/P.O/JAO/Adm/ S-3/D.No.74/2011, if so advised. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 25th April 2011 ajr