THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No.25368 of 2011 Dated:13.09.2011 Between: M.Chandra Sekhara Rao .. Petitioner And State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary to Government, Home (Services-II) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No.25368 of 2011 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) The petitioner is a Police Constable in Vizianagaram District. He filed O.A.No.6834 of 2009 praying for a direction to the respondents 1 to 3 herein to consider his case for appointment to the post of Sub Inspector of Police (Civil) with all consequential benefits, if necessary, by cancelling the appointment of Sri G.Subba Rao and Sri P.Kasiviswanadham – respondents 4 and 5. The Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal allowed the said O.A. on 15.04.2010 directing the respondents 1 to 3 to consider the case of the applicant for appointment to the post of Sub Inspector (Civil) pursuant to the notification dated 11.03.1998. It appears, the respondents 1 to 3 herein filed W.P.No.27044 of 2010 against the said order. Their application for stay of the order of the Tribunal was rejected by this Court. Thereafter, the third respondent herein vide Memorandum dated 13.11.2010 passed a detailed order rejecting the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Sub Inspector. Being aggrieved by the rejection order, the petitioner initiated contempt proceedings by filing C.A.No.627 of 2010. Following the decision of the Supreme Court in J.S. Parihar v Ganpat Duggar[1], the Tribunal closed the said C.A. and discharged the contemnors therein, observing that in view of the pendency of the writ petition, it would be not be appropriate to punish the respondents for contempt of the orders passed by the Tribunal. This is not put in challenge in this writ petition. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of the Tribunal dated 15.04.2010 in O.A.No.6834 of 2009 is not a mere order directing the respondents 1 to 3 to consider the case of the petitioner. He would contend that the Tribunal gave a clear finding that respondents 4 and 5 in the O.A. were less meritorious than the petitioner and therefore denying the appointment of the petitioner is unsustainable. According to the counsel, when a clear finding is given, the mere pendency of the writ petition against the order of the Tribunal does not preclude to exercise the contempt power under Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. It is well settled that when a mandamus is issued to a public authority to consider the case of the petitioner for redressal or necessary discharge of statutory obligations and in pursuance thereof an order is passed denying any benefit to the petitioner or aggrieved person, it would amount to contempt. An order of rejection would give rise to a fresh cause of action. Remedy in such a case is to initiate legal action against an adverse order and a contempt petition would not lie. The same was laid down in Ganpat Duggar which reads as under. I n Ganpat Duggar, the Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court took the view that when an order passed – in that case preparation of seniority list – after the judgment of the Court; even if such order is wrong and not in conformity with the directions of the Court, it cannot be considered to be in willful violation of the order. The appeal before the Supreme Court was rejected observing as under (Para 6 of SCC). … whether it is in conformity with the directions issued by the earlier Benches. It is seen that once there is an order passed by the Government on the basis of the directions issued by the Court, there arises a fresh cause of action to seek redressal in an appropriate forum. The preparation of the seniority list may be wrong or may be right or may or may not be in conformity with the directions. But that would be a fresh cause of action for the aggrieved party to avail of the opportunity of judicial review. But that cannot be considered to be the willful violation of the order. After reexercising the judicial review in contempt proceedings, a fresh direction by the learned Single Judge cannot be given to redraw the seniority list. The same principle was also reiterated in Chotu Ram v. Urvashi Gulati[2]. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal, especially when it has closed the C.A. following the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ganpat Duggar. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) ___________________ (K.G.SHANKAR, J) 13.09.2011 KH [1] AIR 1997 SC 113 : (1996) 6 SCC 291 [2] (2001) 7 SCC 530 : AIR SCW 3208