THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH CONTEMPAT CASE NO:932 OF 2011 DATE:30.08.2011 BETWEEN DR.V.HANUMANTHARAO …PETITIONER AND DR.S.UMAMAHESWARARAO …RESPONDENT. THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH CONTEMPAT CASE NO:932 OF 2011 ORDER: The present contempt case is filed by the petitioner seeking to punish the respondent under sections 10 and 11 of the Contempt of Court Act for non implementation of the order of this Court dated 30.4.2011 passed in W.P.M.P.No:15210 of 2011 in W.P.No:27647 of 2011. The writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking for issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the 1st respondent to treat his service from 21.7.2001 as experience in the rank of Professor in Veterninary Physiology Department of Sri Venkateswara Veterinary University, Tirupathi and pay salary for the period w.e.f from 3.11.2000 and issue consequential directions that the petitioner is entitled to be treated as Professor from the said date for all practical purposes. Along with the main writ petition, the petitioner also filed W.P.M.P.15210 of 2011 seeking a direction to the 1st respondent to permit him to appear for the interview to the post of Dean of Veterinary Science and to the post of Director of Research and the selection, if any would be subject to the result of the writ petition. By order dated 30.4.2011, this Court passed the following interim order: “This application is filed by the petitioner seeking to direct 1st respondent to permit him to appear for the interview to the post of Dean of Veterinary Science and to the post of Director of Research. The main writ petition itself is filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the 1st respondent to treat the service of the petitioner 21.7.2001 as experience in the rank of Professor in Veterinary Physiology Department of Sri Venkateswara Veterinary University, Tirupathi and pay salary for the period w.e.f 3.11.2000 and issue consequential direction that he is entitled to be treated as Professor from the said date for all practical purposes to continue the petitioner in service without any artificial breaks. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent- University. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that during the pendency of the writ petition, the University selected certain persons to the post of Dean/Director who joined the respective positions during the year 2008 and retired recently. Again, the University advertised these positions during April, 2010 vbide Advt.No:1/RC/2010 dated 21.4.2010 and the petitioner has also submitted his application again for the position of the Director of Research and the University re advertised the positions of Dean and Director etc. during April, 2011 stating that the candidates who have applied earlier need not apply again. Now, the date of interview may be decided today or tomorrow and that now he is aged about 56 years and if he were denied the present opportunity, his career would be spoiled. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel for the University that the 1st respondent may be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for allowing him for the interview in question, if he is otherwise eligible. Considering the submissions made by both the counsel, the 1st respondent is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for the interview in question, if he is otherwise eligible.” The learned senior counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioner possessed all the requisite qualifications to hold the post of Dean of Veterinary Science or the post of Director and that the petitioner filed the writ petition seeking to treat his service from 21.7.2001 on which he was working as Associate Professor, as an experience in the rank of Professor in Veterinary Physiology Department of Sri Venkateswara Veterinary University, Tirupathi and considering the interim relief, this Court directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for the interview in question. While pointing out the proceedings dated 18.6.2011, the learned senior counsel would submit that though the petitioner possessed the requisite qualifications but his case was rejected in calling for the interview. Therefore, these acts amount to disobedience of the order of this Court. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent University submits that in compliance of the order passed by this Court, the 1st respondent has issued the proceedings dated 18.6.2011 informing the reasons under which, the candidature of the petitioner could not be considered for interview. One should possess the minimum service of 5 years as professor or the Principal whereas the petitioner put in only 3 years 7 months 15 days and therefore, he could not considered for the interview. In view of the controversy, it is relevant to go through the proceedings No:11226/RC/2007, dated 18.6.2011 wherein it is made clear that besides the stipulated academic qualifications, one should possess 20 years of experience in Teaching, out which at least five years should be as Professor whereas the petitioner has put in only 3 years, 7 months 15 days of service as Professor on the ground that he was selected as professor of Veterinary Physiology and he has assumed charge on 23.8.2007. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that very purpose of filing the writ petition is to direct the 1st respondent to treat the service of the petitioner from 21.7.2001 as experience in the rank of Professor in Veterninary Physiology Department of Sri Venkateswara Veterinary University. The interim direction that was given by this Court is only confined to the direction to the 1st respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for the interview in question subject to his eligibility. The order dated 18.6.2011, which has been passed pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court, makes it clear that the candidature of the petitioner could not have been considered on the ground of non fulfillment of essential qualification of 5 years experience in the category of Professor/Principal Scientist. The contention that that the service of the petitioner from 21.7.2001 has to be treated as an experience in the rank of Professor and thereby, the petitioner has fulfilled the requisite qualification of 5 years experience in the post of Professor, is the main issue in the writ petition and as such, the same can only be adjudicated in the writ petition. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case coupled with the order of the Venkateswara Veterinary University, dated 18.6.2011 and in view of the limited scope of the interim order, I am of the view that no acts of contempt on the part of the respondent are made out to entertain the present contempt case. Accordingly, the contempt case is dismissed. However, it is made clear that this order will not come in the way of the petitioner in challenging the proceedings dated 18.6.2011. _________________ Justice G.Chandraiah. Gurc. Date:30.8.2011 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH CONTEMPAT CASE NO:932 of 2011 DATE:30.08.2011