THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CONTEMPT CASE NO.1562 OF 2009 Dated: 02.09.2011 Between: Smt. S.Sasikala Devi …Petitioner And: Dr.K.Lakshminarayana, I.A.S, Commissioner of Technical Education, A.P., B.R.K.R. Buildings, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad and another …Respondents THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CONTEMPT CASE NO.1562 OF 2009 ORDER: This contempt case is filed for punishing the respondent herein i.e. Sri L.Premachandra Reddy, the then Commissioner of Technical Education, Government of A.P., Hyderabad on the plea that he willfully disobeyed and violated the order dated 21-7-2009 passed in writ petition No.19020 of 2002 by this court and thereby committed contempt of this court. 2. Before taking up the question whether the aforesaid official committed contempt, the circumstances which led to the filing of this contempt case and the order passed in the writ petition should be noted. The petitioner herein is one Smt.S.Sasikala Devi who is stated to be working as Associate Lecturer in Hotel Management and Catering Technology, S.P.W. Polytechnic, Tirumala Tirupati Devastanam (for short, TTD), Tirupati. She filed the above writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents therein in not regularizing her service as Associate Lecturer in the above wing in the college of the TTD in which she was appointed and for a direction to the respondents therein to regularize her service in the existing vacancy of that post from the date of her appointment i.e. 6-7-1993 without insisting for ratification of the same from the fourth respondent in the writ petition. 3. In the above writ petition, there were four respondents. The first respondent is Executive Officer of TTD, the second is Devastanam Educational Officer of TTD and the third is Principal of S.P.W. Polytechnic college of TTD in which the petitioner was appointed as Associate Lecturer. The fourth respondent is Commissioner of Technical Education, Government of A.P., Hyderabad. 4. It is seen from the order in writ petition that originally the petitioner was appointed as a Skilled Assistant on 7-10- 1982 on regular basis in TTD. Thereafter in accordance with the amended TTD Service Rules, the petitioner was appointed as an Associate Lecturer in the third respondent college in the writ petition on 2-7-1993 in the scale of pay applicable to the said post and she joined the said post on 6-7-1993. She was also granted three annual increments due on 1-7-1994, 1-7-1995 and 1-7-1996. It is further seen from the pleadings in the said writ petition that subsequently regarding granting of further increments and her regularization, the TTD authorities concluded that the regularization of the petitioner in her post required ratification from the fourth respondent i.e. Commissioner of Technical Education as the post is an aided post. 5. Thereafter some correspondence went on before respondents 1 to 3 inter se. Subsequently the Devastanam Educational Officer addressed D.O. letter dated 29-6-2000 requesting the Commissioner of Technical Education (for short Commissioner) to ratify the appointment of the writ petitioner, but the said Commissioner in stead of ratifying informed the TTD authorities to take decision on their own. It may then be noted that the Devastanam Educational Officer addressed another D.O. letter dated 10-5-2002 again requesting the Commissioner to ratify the petitioner’s appointment quoting some rules also. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2, the learned counsel for respondent No.3 and the learned Government Pleader for Higher Education appearing for the respondent No.4, this Court by its order dated 1-7-2009 refused to grant any Mandamus for regularization of the petitioner in her service as prayed for by her, but disposed of the writ petition giving a direction to the Commissioner to take a decision on the D.O letters dated 29-6-2000 and 10-5-2002 of the Devastanam Educational Officer regarding the ratification or approval to be granted. The operative portion reads as follows. “Therefore, respondent No.4 is hereby directed to consider the D.O. letters of respondent Nos.1 to 3 and pass necessary orders with regard to the ratification of the action initiated by the Tirumala Tirupathi Devastanam Management in so far as the petitioner herein is concerned. The said action shall be done as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.” 7. The complaint of the petitioner is that the above order of this court was received by the Commissioner in the 3rd week of August, 2009 (date not specified), but he did not comply with it. She then says that she herself by a notice dated 25-9-2009 communicated the above order of this court to the Commissioner and requested him to pass necessary orders in terms thereof and despite the same, he did not pass any orders. She presented this contempt case on 5-11-2009. Thereafter notice was ordered and the alleged contemnor i.e. Sri L.Premachandra Reddy, Commissioner was present before this court on 4-10-2010 and on that day his presence was dispensed with. The Commissioner filed his counter on 26-2-2010. In the said counter, it is averred that the Commissioner passed the order in his letter No.C4/27905/2002, dated 4-12-2009 informing the Executive Officer of the TTD that no ratification can be given as the petitioner was not qualified to be appointed as Associate Lecturer as per the relevant Government Rules. 8. It is not clear from the counter of Sri L.Premachandra Reddy as to when he received the order dated 21-7-2009 passed in the above writ petition. It should however be noted that in her affidavit filed in support of her contempt case, the petitioner stated that she has communicated the order of this court in the writ petition to him by her notice dated 25-9-2009 and the Commissioner received it on 25-9-2009 itself. Even reckoned from 25-9-2009, the period of six weeks fixed by this court for acting on the D.O letters in question would expire by about 7-11-2009 and going by that date it is seen that there is a delay of nearly 26 days in passing the order/letter dated 4-12-2009 as directed by this court. However in the circumstances as will be presently seen this is not of much significance. 9. What should be noted, at the risk of repetition, is that this court never directed the Commissioner to straightaway the ratify of the appointment of Smt.S.Sasikala Devi, but it merely directed the Commissioner to consider the matter in the light of the two D.O letters dated 29-6-2000 and 10-5-2002 referred to supra and pass necessary orders. The Commissioner has complied with that order though with a delay of 26 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order which was sent by the petitioner. 10. Sri V.Jagapathi, the learned counsel for petitioner however pointed out that the Commissioner has taken a view which is contrary to the rules and he ought to have ratified the appointment of petitioner. Another point urged by him is that in the case of appointments of two other candidates i.e. Koteswar Rao and Yashodamma whose cases are similar to that of petitioner, have been ratified by the Government and the Commissioner has taken a different view in the case of petitioner discriminating against her. 11. It may be noted that in the writ petition itself the Commissioner, Technical Education, who is the fourth respondent therein filed counter and that counter was filed by one Sri A.R.Sukumar, the then Commissioner of Technical Education. In the said counter, he pleaded that Smt. S.Sasikala i.e. the petitioner did not possess a master’s degree which is the essential qualification for the post in question as prescribed in GO.Ms.No.271, LEN & TE Department, dated 28-9-1984 at the time of her appointment and therefore her appointment was not in accordance with the rules framed by the Government prescribing the qualification for the post in question and saying so he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. The stand of the petitioner and the TTD authority in the writ petition was that petitioner was qualified as per TTD rules and the Devastanam Educational Officer also relied upon certain draft rules which are said to have been circulated to the TTD authorities. The stand of the Commissioner was that the said draft rules remained only draft rules and were not applicable and that the appointment of the petitioner was not in accordance with aforesaid Government Rules. It is seen that the petitioner’s counsel or the Government Pleader did not take this counter of the Commissioner to the notice of this court inviting its orders on the merits of the said contentions when the writ petition No.19020 of 2002 was disposed of. It appears that as the post in question was admitted to grant- in-aid the Government or the Commissioner were insisting upon compliance with Government Rules. 12. Sri L.Premachandra Reddy, the Commissioner of Technical Education against whom this contempt case is filed also reiterated the same ground and elaborated it in his letter dated 4-12-2009 which he addressed to the Executive Officer of TTD (respondent No.1 in the writ petition) with copies marked to Devastanam Educational Officer and Principal of the S.P.W. Polytechnic, Tirupati. He gave his reasons for refusing the request of the TTD authorities in para 6 of his said letter and they read as follows. “ i) The posts of Associate Lecturers in Polytechnics are governed by a separate set of rules namely the Special Rules for A.P. Technical Education Service issued in GO Ms.No.1146, G.A (Rules) Department dated 13-9-61, read with GO Ms.No.271, LENTE Department dated 29-8-84 according to which one must possess a 2nd Class Master’s Degree in the appropriate subject with not less than 50% marks for appointment to the posts of Associate Lecturer in Non-Engineering which includes Associate Lecturers in Hotel Management Catering and Food Technology. Whereas the petitioner possesses only a diploma in Catering and Food Technology as against the requirement of 2nd Class Master’s Degree in Hotel Management Catering and Food Technology. ii) The TTD Rules cannot be applied for the posts in SPW Polytechnic, since it is a Technical Institution receiving Grant-in-aid governed by rules of Department of Higher Education. iii) The Management considered the appointment of the petitioner to the posts of Associate Lecturer in HMCFT based on the draft rules proposed to Government which are not approved by the Government with full knowledge that they are only draft rules because in resolution No.321 dated 24/25.6.93 of TTD approving the appointment also mentions this. iv) The management sought for clarification after a lapse of more than 6 years. This could have been brought to the notice of the Department immediately. v) As per the condition for sanction of grant-in-aid to private polytechnics, the Management of the Polytechnics shall follow the rules that are followed in Technical Education Department, in respect of appointments to the posts to the Govt. Polytechnic, among others. Therefore, the resolution of TTD approving qualifications which are contrary to rules of Higher Education Department is not valid. 13. Sri V.Jagapathi says that the above order is invalid or that the Commissioner has taken a wrong view in the matter in violation of the court’s order in the writ petition and therefore he is guilty of contempt. It may be noted that what all this court directed the Commissioner to do in the writ petition was to take a decision in the matter on the two D.O letters referred to supra and the Commissioner has taken his view and addressed the above letter dated 4-12-2009 to the TTD authorities expressing his view that the appointment of the petitioner was against Government Rules and therefore it cannot be ratified as the post is an aided post. It should be noted, as pointed out by the learned Government Pleader, that whether the above view of the Commissioner is right or wrong regarding the applicability of the rules cannot be the subject matter of this contempt case and no opinion can be expressed on that aspect in this contempt case. The Commissioner has complied with the order of this court and therefore it can be said that there ends the matter and I agree with the submission of the learned Government Pleader. 14. In his endeavor to show that the Commissioner violated the order, Sri V.Jagapathi stated across the bar that one Smt.Yashodamma and another Koteswar Rao referred to supra and who are similarly situated like petitioner have been regularized. He also filed copies of their orders. It is not possible to compare their cases and take a decision in the matter as the said two persons are not before the court and in fact this aspect is also not the subject matter of the contempt case. In the course of arguments, the learned Government Pleader pointed out that petitioner filed another writ petition i.e. writ petition No.28262 of 2009 questioning the above letter dated 4-12-2009 of the Commissioner and seeking regularization and this has been confirmed by Sri V.Jagapathi. This is mentioned in the additional counter filed by Sri K.Laxmi Narayana, the present Commissioner. In fact that was the right remedy chosen by the petitioner and that writ petition is pending. Hence the petitioner cannot question the validity of the order dated 4-12-2009 passed by the Commissioner in this contempt case. Further the validity of that order is now the subject matter of writ petition No.28262 of 2009 referred to supra and therefore this court cannot go into that question in this contempt case and even otherwise in my opinion this court should not in this contempt case go into the validity of that order. 15. It should be noted that when this court passes an order directing a public authority to dispose of and pass appropriate orders on any representation or letter, the order of the court must be held to be complied with when the said authority disposes of the matter and passes orders. One cannot complain that the order of this court is violated when the order passed by the public authority is not on the lines expected by such party and goes against him. In the present case also, the grievance of the petitioner as ventilated through her counsel is that since the Commissioner did not ratify her appointment he must be held to be guilty of contempt. This contention cannot be accepted. It may be noted that the merits of the letter dated 4-12-2009 with regard to the applicability of non-applicability of the rules mentioned therein on a comparison of the cases of Smt.Yashodamma and Sri Koteswar Rao, therefore cannot be gone into in this contempt case. 16. In the counter filed by Sri L.Premachandra Reddy in this contempt case, he mentioned about his above letter dated 4-12- 2009 which he passed. He then referred to his another office letter No.E1/13998/98 dated 24-7-2002 and stated that he already gave a reply to the TTD authorities on the D.O letters dated 29-6-2000 and 10-5-2002 i.e. the present two D.O letters. It is seen that this above letter dated 24-7-2002 was not mentioned in the counter of the Commissioner, Technical Education, filed in the writ petition. Therefore a comment is made that the Commissioner came up with a false affidavit with regard to the dispatch of the letter dated 24-7-2002 while in fact no such letter existed for the simple reason that if there had been such a letter, that would have been mentioned in the counter of the fourth respondent filed in the writ petition. This is of course a lapse on the part of the fourth respondent. 17. It should however be noted that the substance of the counter affidavit would show that the petitioner was not qualified for the post and therefore ratification was not given and this is the substance of the said letter dated 24-7-2002 also. This apart, in both the D.O letters in question the TTD authorities made a mention that the Commissioner has already informed the TTD authorities that the petitioner was not qualified for the post as per the Government Rules and therefore ratification cannot be given. Hence the non-mention of the above D.O letter dated 24-7-2002 in the counter of the fourth respondent cannot be made a ground to show that the fourth respondent committed contempt and it may at best show negligence in drafting the counter and it is hoped that henceforth the fourth respondent office would be careful in drafting the counters to avoid such mistakes. 18. Sri V.Jagapathi then requested that this contempt case may be posted along with the above writ petition No.28262 of 2009 which the petitioner again filed questioning the Commissioner’s letter or order dated 4-12-2009 so that both can be disposed of together. It should be noted that the scope of this contempt case is totally different from the scope of the said writ petition No.28262 of 2009 and hence that request is rejected as the contempt case can be disposed of independently. It was also submitted that the petitioner has subsequently acquired a master’s degree i.e. Master of Science Psychology from Sri Venkateswara University and therefore her case should be considered for regularization as requested by her. A perusal of the xerox copy of it would show that she acquired the above qualification in July, 2008. It is therefore clear that she did not have this qualification at the time of her appointment which was in 1993. Even otherwise the petitioner can raise this contention in writ petition No.28262 of 2009. 19. It may be noted that in the proceedings initiated for contempt of court, this court should act with great circumspection and proceed to punish an alleged contemnor only if it is found that he acted in willful disobedience of the order of the court. The Commissioner took the stand that as per the Government Rules applicable which he mentioned in the letter dated 4-12-2009 and also in the earlier counter filed in the writ petition the petitioner was not qualified for being appointed to the post whereas the TTD authorities took the stand that she is qualified as per their rules. The question as to whether the Commissioner is right or the TTD authorities are right was raised in the present writ petition No.19020 of 2002, but this court did not decide it and gave a direction to the Commissioner to pass orders on the two D.O letters mentioned supra. The Commissioner acted and passed his orders and took the decision through his letter dated 4-12-2009 and that went against the petitioner. Thus the Commissioner cannot be said to have disobeyed the order of this court in any manner except with regard to the delay of about 24 days. That in my opinion in the circumstances of this case cannot be taken seriously and it is hoped that henceforth such delays would be avoided by the Commissioner in future. 20. Accordingly, for all the aforesaid reasons, it is held that no grounds are made out in this contempt case to hold that Sri L.Premachandra Reddy, the Commissioner of Technical Education has committed contempt as complained by the petitioner and that question is decided against the petitioner. This contempt case is therefore dismissed. No costs. ___________________________ JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR 2nd September, 2011 Tjmr THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CONTEMPT CASE NO.1562 OF 2009 Dated: 02.09.2011