IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO CONTEMPT CASE NO.872 OF 2010 DATED:27.7.2010 Between: Venkat Kamala Kanth Nadimpalli … Petitioner And Sri Dinesh Rai, Secretary, Ministry of Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises Previously known as Small Scale Agro & Rural Industries Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO CONTEMPT CASE NO.872 OF 2010 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram) The Contempt Case is misconceived. The petitioner filed O.A. No.413 of 2001 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) which was rejected by an order dt.20.12.2002 on merits as well as on the ground that no relief as sought by the petitioner could be granted since, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in A. Janardhana v. Union of India[1], a direct recruit, who enters service after a promotee was already unconditionally and without reservation promoted and whose promotion is not shown to be invalid or illegal according to relevant statutory or non-statutory rules, cannot gain seniority over such promotee as that would be arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The petitioner, directly recruited as Small Industries Promotion Officer, filed Writ Petition No.6109 of 2004. By the judgment dt.19.4.2004 the writ petition was rejected confirming the conclusion of the Tribunal on merits and for the additional reason that the petitioner’s claim for seniority over promotees was presented in the O.A. without the affected promotees impleaded. The Contempt Case is filed alleging that the respondents have gone back on one of the assertions made in O.A. No.413 of 2001. Such a grievance is misconceived in an application for contempt. There is no judgment of either the Tribunal or of this Court (confirming the order of the Tribunal), which is claimed to have been violated by the respondents, by recanting an assertion made by the respondents in the O.A. On the aforesaid analysis, the Contempt Case is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J _____________________ R. KANTHA RAO, J 27-7-2010 bnr [1] AIR 1983 SC 769