THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CONTEMPT CASE No.1818 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.No.22165 of 2010 complaining that though he was selected by the Committee constituted under G.O.Rt.No.203, dated 13.04.2010, (for short ‘the G.O.’) for the post of Mandal Coordinator, the Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Singanamala Mandal, Anantapur District, who is the Coordinator of the Committee, the respondent herein, did not issue orders of appointment. The writ petition was disposed of on 20.09.2010, directing that in case the petitioner is selected, the respondent shall issue orders forthwith and on the other hand, if the petitioner is not selected, he shall be communicated the reasons thereof within a period of two weeks. Stating to be in compliance with the order of this Court, the respondent made an endorsement, dated 16.11.2010, appointing one Sri M.Anil Kumar as Mandal Coordinator. This contempt case is filed stating that the endorsement made by the respondent on 16.11.2010 amounts to contempt of orders of this Court in the writ petition. The petitioner contends that he was selected by the Committee and the minutes were signed by almost all the members, and that the respondent had not only ignored the decision taken by the Committee, but also had appointed a person, who was not selected at all. The respondent filed a counter-affidavit. She states that the matter was examined with reference to the relevant record and the G.O., and the endorsement was made with a view to give effect to the G.O. According to her, the petitioner did not work as Prerak under earlier schemes and the recommendation or selection made by the Chairman of the Committee in favour of the petitioner is contrary to the G.O. She further stated that the total ‘Committee’ did not select the petitioner and the selection was made by the Chairman alone. At the end, she stated that in the absence of quorum of the Committee, M.P.D.O. has the power to appoint a Mandal Coordinator in accordance with the guidelines contained in the G.O. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the minutes of selection was signed by the Mandal Educational Officer, Mandal Parishad Chairman, Tahsildar and President of Mandal Mahila Samakya. He further submits that the respondent has no other role to play, than to carryout the decision of the Committee and strangely enough, she has overruled the decision of the Committee and appointed a candidate of her own choice. The learned Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that being the executive authority of the Mandal, the respondent is under obligation to ensure that the provisions of the G.O. are strictly implemented and after perusal of the record, the respondent formed an opinion that the selection of the petitioner was not in accordance with the G.O. She contends that the respondent has appointed a candidate who possessed the prescribed qualifications and did not issue orders of appointment in favour of the petitioner, since it was found that he did not act as a Prerak under the earlier schemes. This Court is rather surprised to know the manner in which the respondent has acted. A Committee for selection and appointment of candidates of Mandal Coordinators is constituted under the G.O. It comprises of elected representatives as well as officials at the Mandal level. It is not in dispute that the Committee met on 17.05.2010. The direction issued by this Court in W.P.No.22165 of 2010 reads as under: “Para-6: In the circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing that: a) in case the petitioner is selected, the 3rd respondent shall issue orders of appointment forthwith; and b) on the other hand, the petitioner is not selected, he shall be communicated the reasons thereof, within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order”. A perusal of the proceedings of the Committee discloses that the Chairperson of the Committee made an independent endorsement in support of his conclusion that the petitioner is selected. The Tahsildar made a separate endorsement to the effect that the petitioner as well as one Mr. M.Anil Kumar hold the qualifications and that any of them can be selected. Other participants, namely M.E.O and President of Mandal Samakhya simply signed the proceedings. The result is that the Chairman’s view point stands accepted. If there was any uncertainty in the proceedings of the Committee, the respondent ought to have sought clarification from the Committee itself. However, she has gone to the extent of finding fault with the view expressed by the Chairman of the Committee and appointed a candidate, who was not selected by the Committee at all. The impugned endorsement constitutes a clear contempt of orders of this Court. After extracting the purport of the directions issued by this Court, the respondent made the following endorsement: “Through reference 7th cited, the MPDO has put up a note before the Mandal Parishad President to the effect that Sri B. Nagendra (the petitioner herein) does not possess the qualifications stipulated under references 1 to 3, and that Sri M. Anil Kumar S/o.Balappa, Shinganamala can be appointed as Mandal Coordinator, since he possessed the qualifications”. Thereupon, the Mandal Parishad Chairman directed that, ”Sri B. Nagendra be appointed as Mandal Coordinator, since the members of the Committee selected him, vide proceedings dated 17-05-2010. However, since Sri Nagendra did not work as Prerak/Nodal Prerak/Assistant Prerak/Assistant Nodal Prerak, under the continuous education programme, as required under reference 3, his application cannot be considered”. The endorsement is made in utter disregard of the specific directions issued by this Court. Even according to the respondent, the petitioner was selected by the Committee. Once that is so, the only course open to her, was, to appoint the petitioner as Mandal Coordinator. She has not only disobeyed and disregarded the proceedings of the Committee, but also specific directions issued by this Court. The respondent tried to justify her action by stating that her superiors, viz., the Chief Executive Officer of the Zilla Praja Parishad and Deputy Director, Adult Education, Zilla Lok Shiksha Samithi, Anantapur had instructed, and in a way, warned her to make appointments strictly in accordance with the G.O., even if the recommendations of the Committee is in vogue. Both the officers were summoned and they denied the allegation of the petitioner. They have also filed affidavits, making their stand clear. It needs to be noted that the Chief Executive Officer of the Mandal Parishad, happens to be the Appellate Authority and any aggrieved party has to approach him, by way of appeal. The endorsement made by the petitioner amounts to clear Contempt of Court. This Court is left with no alternative, except to arrive at the conclusion. The opportunity given to the respondent to take corrective steps was not availed. With each day of adjournment, she has become more and more assertive and tried to justify her action. The endorsement is not the result of an accidental omission, but a deliberate attempt by the respondent, to ignore and disregard the orders of this Court, and of her superiors. She deserved the maximum punishment, prescribed under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act. However, taking into account the fact that the respondent is a woman, the punishment of imprisonment is not considered. Hence, the respondent is found guilty and punishment under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act is imposed in the form of fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only). The fine shall be deposited with the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court within a period of 30 days from today. The contempt case is accordingly allowed. ______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt:18.03.2011. Kdl/ko