IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH & THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CONTEMPT CASE No.525 of 2010 In W.P.1634 of 2008 Between: Pagadala Khali Kanthi ..... PETITIONER AND D.R.Garg, Commissioner for Cooperation and Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad .....RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CONTEMPT CASE No.525 of 2010 In W.P.1634 of 2008 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah) This contempt case is filed complaining that the respondent has deliberately and willfully disobeyed the orders of this Court passed in W.P.1634/2008 dated 29.01.2010. 2. This Court by the aforesaid orders confirmed the orders of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad dated 08.08.2007 in O.A.3787/2007. The petitioner filed the said O.A. to declare the action of the respondent in not issuing appointment orders to her as Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, though she was selected through A.P.Public Service Commission and allotted to the Cooperative Department as illegal and consequently direct the respondent to issue appointment orders to the petitioner as Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies. The said O.A. was allowed directing the respondent herein to issue orders of appointment to the petitioner herein for the post of Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies. 3. It is stated that Special Leave Petition said to have been filed by the respondent before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India against the orders of this Court dated 29.01.2010 confirming the orders of the Tribunal was dismissed and therefore, the respondent issued an order of appointment in proceedings RC No.5550/2008/SG-5, dated 27.08.2010 appointing the petitioner as Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies subject to compliance of the usual conditions, informing the petitioner to join duty within 30 days. 4. We are of the opinion that the delay is caused in issuing the appointment orders to the petitioner because of the respondent approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing Special Leave Petition against the orders of this Court though was unsuccessful. Therefore, it cannot be said that the delay is willful and deliberate. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appointment orders be allowed to relate back to the date of selection. We are not inclined to express any opinion in this regard as it is for the petitioner to work out his remedies, if she is still aggrieved by the appointment order. 5. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed. ___________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J ________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR,J Dated: 03.09.2010 Dsr