THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI Contempt Case No. 349 of 2010 Dated: 27.10.2010 Between: J.Saibabu, Prakasam District. … Petitioner And P.V.Seshaiah, Nellore. … Respondent THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI Contempt Case No. 349 of 2010 O R D E R : This contempt case is filed alleging violation of the order dated 19.10.2009 passed by this Court in W.P.M.P.No.25885 of 2009 in W.P.No.19855 of 2009 which reads as under: “Notice. There shall be a direction to the respondents to consider the representations of the petitioner dated 17.06.2008 and 10.07.2009 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.” The main writ petition was filed by the petitioner herein aggrieved by the action of the respondent in not fixing the seniority. The petitioner also sought a direction to fix his seniority as per his entitlement and eligibility on par with the juniors. By order dated 19.10.2009 in W.P.M.P.No.25885 of 2009, this Court directed the respondents to consider the representations of the petitioner dated 17.06.2008 and 10.07.2009 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of four weeks. Alleging that the respondent failed to pass any such order, this contempt case was filed on 10.03.2010. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, it is stated that as per the directions of this Court, the petitioner’s representation was considered and by proceedings dated 01.12.2009 he was informed that his seniority ranking in the cadre of Vulcaniser Grade-II would be communicated after completion of all the formalities. It is also stated that the final seniority list of Vulcaniser Grade-II was published on 20.02.2010 in which the name of the petitioner appeared at Sl.No.51. The seniority ranking in the post of Vulcaniser Grade-II was informed to the petitioner by sending a copy of the proceedings and the final seniority list on 06.03.2010 but the petitioner had refused to acknowledge the same. Thus, it is contended that the allegation that the respondent had flouted the order passed by this Court is factually in correct. The petitioner filed reply affidavit stating that the order said to have been passed by the respondent on his representation was not communicated to the petitioner. However, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent- Corporation has placed before this Court the relevant record which shows that the petitioner himself refused to receive the proceedings. Such an endorsement was made by the Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) APSRTC on 06.03.2010. It also contains the signature of a witness. In the circumstances, I do not find any substance in the contention of the petitioner that no orders were passed on the representation of the petitioner as directed by this Court. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is dismissed. However, this shall not preclude the petitioner to challenge the seniority list dated 01.12.2009 or the subsequent proceedings dated 20.02.2010 by availing the appropriate remedy as available under law, if so advised. ​ ______________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 27.10.2010 KLP