THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO CONTEMPT CASE No. 711 OF 2011 O R D E R: Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 3rd respondent herein is not a necessary party to this contempt of Court action and the contempt is committed by Respondents 1 and 2. At page 23 of the paper book filed in support of this contempt of Court action, I found an order passed by the Commissioner of Intermediate Education, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad on 01.06.2005 rejecting the claim of the petitioner herein to be absorbed against a grant-in-aid post. It is stated in that order that the petitioner was working as a part-time Junior Lecturer in Maths in the 3rd respondent Junior College at Pulletikurru in East Godavari District. When once his claim for absorption against a grant-in-aid post is rejected, the question of the State or the Commissioner of Intermediate Education releasing his salary and allowances, would not arise. In view of this, I do not see any justification for admitting this contempt of Court action and accordingly, it is dismissed. No costs. ---------------------------------- (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 27th August 2011 ksld