THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Contempt Case No :583 of 2010 Date: 20.4.2010 Between: P. Kanoz ..... PETITIONER AND N. Reddi Prakash, Secretary, A.P. Residential Educational Institutions Society (Regd.), Hyderabad and others. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner : Smt. Bobba Vijayalakshmi Counsel for the Respondent No. 1: Sri K. Durga Prasad Counsel for the respondent No.2: G.P. for School Education The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CONTEMPT CASE NO :583 of 2010 ORDER: This contempt case is filed by respondent No.5 in Writ Petition No. 24943 of 2008 alleging willful disobedience of order dated 30.4.2009 passed in the said writ petition. The above mentioned writ petition was filed by the petitioners therein, feeling aggrieved by the action of the respondents in releasing a fresh provisional seniority list and calling for objections without taking a decision on the earlier provisional seniority list. The petitioner herein was impleaded as Respondent No. 15 and he opposed the relief claimed by the petitioners in the said writ petition. He contended that the writ petition itself was premature as no final decision was taken on the fresh objections called for by the respondents. While accepting the said stand taken on behalf of the petitioner herein as respondent No.15 in the writ petition, this Court gave the following direction: “In this view of the matter, without going into the merits of the claims of the petitioners, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent No.1 to consider the objections of the petitioners before finalizing the inter se seniority. In the light of the apprehension expressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners that respondent No.1 may immediately act upon the final seniority list causing detriment to the interests of the petitioners, respondent No.1 is directed not to act upon the seniority list after it is finalized for a period of two weeks from the date of communication of the final seniority list to the petitioners so as to enable them to avail their remedies, if they feel aggrieved by the final seniority list.” Smt. Bobba Vijayalakshmi, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that without properly complying with the above mentioned order, respondent No.1 issued proceedings dated 30.3.2010. She further stated that final seniority list has not been communicated to the petitioner. In my opinion, the petitioner herein cannot maintain the contempt case because he did not claim any relief against the respondents in Writ Petition No. 24943 of 2008. From the directions given by this Court, as placed above, it is evident that this Court directed the respondents to consider the objections raised by the petitioners therein. If at all, the petitioners in the writ petition should have grievance about the alleged non-compliance with the order of this Court. The petitioner herein, being only one of the unofficial respondents having not claimed any relief in the writ petition, cannot be permitted to complain of the alleged disobedience of the order by the respondents. The contempt case is therefore dismissed. However, the petitioner is given liberty to question the proceedings dated 30.3.2010 by availing appropriate remedies, if he feels aggrieved by the said proceedings. No costs. __________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY,J DATE: 20th April, 2010 pnb