THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P.NO.2598 OF 2008 AND CC.NO. 691 OF 2010 O R D E R Heard both the counsel. 2. This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of mandamus, (a) declaring the inaction of the respondents 3 and 4 in complying with the proceedings of the 2nd respondent bearing No.E2/5263/91 dated 27.6.1991 and E2/5263/91 dated 4.10.1991, as arbitrary, illegal and violative of right to livelihood guaranteed to the petitioners under Article 21 of the Constitution of India apart from rendering the 3rd and 4th respondent liable for action under Section 21 of A.P. Education Act, 1982; and (b) direct the respondents 3 and 4 to regularize the services of the petitioners by duly granting the pay sales with all consequential beneﬁts in compliance of the orders passed by the 2nd respondent in No.E2/5263/91 dated 27.3.1991 and E2/5263/91 dated 4.10.1991. 3. The case of the petitioners as stated in the aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of the writ petition is that all the petitioners are initially engaged on NMR basis by 3rd and 4th respondents college from the years 1986, 1987, 1988, 1996, 2000, 1998, 1998 and 1995 respectively as sweepers and scavengers. The petitioners were also admitted as members of the Employees Provident Fund. The list submitted by the respondents 3 and 4 to the 5th respondents – All India Counsel for Technical Education, with regard to list of employees, the names of the petitioners were submitted in the academic year 2006-07 under the heading Maintenance Department. The grievance of the petitioners is that in spite of working for more than 15 years, respondents 3 and 4 have not granted any pay scales and whenever, there was demand from them for regularization, the respondents 3 and 4 would lend the services of the petitioners to some other outside agency as a measure of punishment. One such instance was when the petitioners were assigned to work under Sri Satya Sai Investigations and Security Services, Vijayawada during the year 2005-06. Their further case is that when the then non- teaching staﬀ association went on strike, there was an agreement and pursuant thereto, the 2nd respondent – State of A.P. represented the Commissioner for Technical Education, passed proceedings no.E2/5263/91 dated 27.6.1991 wherein the management has agreed to examine the issue of non- teaching staﬀ and extend the pay scales. In spite of the same, no orders have been passed by the respondents 3 and 4 college till date. The 2nd respondent once again issued proceedings dated 4.10.1991 directing the respondents 3 and 4 from refraining to make ad hoc appointments and further directed to open service registers to all the petitioners. The said proceedings have not been complied with by the respondents 3 and 4. In case of violation of the orders of the competent authority, Section 21 of Education Act, 1982 empowers the competent authority to withdraw the recognition and as this is a clear case of violation, the oﬃcial respondents may be directed to invoke the said provision. The grievance of the petitioners is that they are working for the last ﬁfteen years with a meager salary of less than Rs.2,000/- per month, therefore sought a direction to the respondents to ﬁx their pay scales and regularize their service in the light of the proceedings dated 27.6.1991 and 4.10.1991. 4. This court by interim order dated 8.2.2008 in W.P.M.P.No.3348/2008 in W.P.No.2598/2008 directed the respondents 3 and 4 to continue the petitioners in service pending the writ petition. By order dated 29.4.2008 in WVMP.NO.1242/2008 and WPMP.No.3348/2008 in W.P.No.2598/2008, while making the interim order dated 8.2.2008 absolute, directed that the interim order shall not come in the way of the respondents, in terminating or dispensing with the services of the petitioners, duly following the procedure prescribed by law. Complaining that the writ petitioners were disengaged in spite of the interim order of this court dated 8.2.2008, which has been made absolute by order dated 29.4.2008, the contempt case in C.C.No.691/2010 is filed. 5. The respondents 3 and 4 ﬁled counter aﬃdavit and denying the averments made in the writ aﬃdavit. The tenor of the counter aﬃdavit is that the petitioners are engaged on contract labour supplied by a labour contractor Sri Satya Sai Investigation and Security Services Pvct. Ltd., as a stop gap arrangement, as there are no sanctioned or created post and subsequently, the petitioners were brought to the maintenance department in the year 2007. Hence, they cannot be considered as employees appointed against sanctioned post. Though the petitioners claimed that they were working since 1986, the pay slips produced, were from 2006. Only the 1st petitioner was engaged as Sweeper in April, 1987 for a consolidated pay of Rs.250/- per month and only her name is referred in the proceedings dated 29.5.1992, issued by the Provident Fund authorities and she left on her own accord from September, 1987 and therefore she ceased to be the employee of the respondent no.3. The petitioners were appointed for a limited period, ending by 30.4.2008 and hence they cannot seek the pay scales and regularization. With these averments, the writ petition was sought to be dismissed. 6. The Assistant Director in the oﬃce of the Commissioner of Technical Education – 2nd respondent ﬁled counter aﬃdavit on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. In the counter aﬃdavit it is stated that the 3rd respondent – Management stated in his letter No.KLCE/A15/124/2009 dated 29.9.2009 that all the petitioners were appointed on ad hoc basis for a period of two years with eﬀect from 1.12.2006 to 30.4.2008 and their services will automatically stand terminated after expiry of their tenure. The petitioners are not covered under the provisions of A.P. Education Act, 1982, as their appointment was contract/ ad hoc basis and they cannot seek for relief sought for in the writ petition. The 4th respondent – college was granted Institution-to be- University status from May, 2010 by the University Grants Commission, New Delhi. This court granted interim order dated 8.2.2008 to continue the petitioners pending writ petition and the 2nd respondent requested the college to comply with the orders of this court, which was later made absolute with modiﬁcations. In a similar writ petition by interim order dated 28.7.2010 in W.P.M.P.No.9506/2009 in W.P.No.7256/2009, the Management of 3rd and 4th respondents were given liberty to consider them for appointment on the same terms and conditions as was done earlier and the petition was closed. It is stated that the Apex Court in TMA PAI vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA {(2002)8 SCC 481} held that the powers of the State Government should be minimal and prior permission of State Government is not required before terminating the employees working in Professional Colleges. With these averments, the writ petition was sought to be disposed of. 7. The petitioner ﬁled common reply aﬃdavit and while reiterating the averments made in the writ aﬃdavit further stated that the facts in W.P.No.7256 of 2009 and in the facts in the present case are diﬀerent and in the said case, the management has conceded that some of the petitioners therein were appointed on regular basis and taken them back and that the said writ petition was ﬁled complaining the violation of Section 79 of the A.P. Education Act, 1982 and that in the present case, the petitioners are seeking implementation of the orders passed by the 2nd respondent dated 27.6.1991 and 4.10.1991. With the other averment made in the counter aﬃdavit ﬁled by the oﬃcial respondents relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in TMA PAI vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA, it is stated that a Division Bench of this court by interim order dated 15.10.2008 in WVMP.NO.3143/2008 and WPMP.NOS.19914 AND 19915/2008 IN WP.NO.15381/2008 held that as long as provisions of Sections 79 and 80 are not declared invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction; these provisions are operative and cannot be interdicted and consequently, neither the authority or jurisdiction of the competent authority under Section 79, nor of the appellate authority under Section 80 of the 1982 Act could be avoided. Along with the reply aﬃdavit, the petitioner ﬁled the latest contribution cards issued by the provident fund authority for the year 2007-2008 for all the petitioners. With these averments inter alia, the counsel for the petitioners sought to allow the writ petition. 8. On behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 additional counter aﬃdavit is ﬁled and stated that it is true that the 2nd respondent issued proceedings No.E2/5263/91 dated 27.3.1991 and that the 3rd respondent was sought compliance report and that it was brought to the notice of the 2nd respondent that the management of KLCE has not regularized the services of most of the employees. The above orders were issued by the 2nd respondent when the State Government monitored the functions of the Private Engineering Colleges in the State in 1991 and later, the All India Council of Technical Education became apex body to accord approvals, controlling, inspecting, monitoring of the functions of Private Un-Aided Engineering Colleges in the State. Government in its memo No.5427/EC.2/ 1999 dated 20.10.2006, informed that the State Government have no powers whatsoever in controlling, inspecting and monitoring of the functions of Un-aided private engineering colleges in the state. As per the judgment of the Apex Court in TMA Pai case at para no.64, the relationship between the management and employee is contractual in nature. It will not be necessary for the institution to get prior permission or ex post facto approval of the governmental authority while taking disciplinary action against a teacher or any other employee. The management of KLCE has stated in their counter aﬃdavit that the petitioners were engaged purely on contract basis through Satya Sai Agency and their contract period was completed in 2008 and hence question of regularization/continuation of their services does not arise. With these averments, the writ petition was sought to be disposed of. 9. On behalf of the respondent – management additional materials papers were filed bringing to the notice of this court letter in Lr.No.E4/3773/2008 dated 7.3.2009 addressed by the Commissioner of Technical Education to the General Secretary, KLCE Non-Teaching Staﬀ Association, and also the appointment order dated 27.11.2006 issued by the management to the petitioners, showing that the appointment is valid upto 30.4.2008. 10. No counter aﬃdavit has been ﬁled on behalf of the 5th respondent – All India Counsel for Technical Education and there is no representation on its behalf. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterating the averments made in the writ aﬃdavit further stated that the petitioners were working since 1986, 1987, 1988, 1996, 2000, 1998 and 1995 respectively and that it is incorrect to state that they were given appointment only during the year 2006 for a period of two years and as per the proceedings dated 27.6.1991 and 4.10.1991, the management agreed not to make appointments on contract/ad hoc basis and hence the petitioners cannot be stated to have been appointed for a ﬁxed period of two years. With these averments, the writ petition was sought to be allowed. He stated that even though this court granted interim direction, directing the respondents to continue the petitioners in service, pending the writ petition, the respondents 3 and 4 have disengaged their services and hence this act of the respondents, amounts to contempt of court and they are liable for contempt proceedings. He stated that this court granted interim order on 8.2.2008 and the same was made absolute on 29.4.2008 and even then the respondents 3 and 4 have disengaged the petitioners and this amounts to continuous wrong and hence Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 which prescribes the limitation, has no application. In support of this contention, he relied on the judgment of the A p e x Court reported in FIRM GANPAT RAM RAJKUMAR v. KALU RAM (1989 Supp (2) Supreme Court Cases 418). 12. On the other hand, the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents 3 and 4 management stated that the petitioners were not appointed in any sanctioned posts for non-teaching staﬀ and hence they cannot seek for any relief of regularization and they are only workmen and they are also not members of the non-teaching staﬀ of the respondent no.3 college and they are engaged through a contract labour contractor and they are only NMRS and the college has appointed them only for a limited period from 2006 to 2008. Their tenure of appointment ended on 30.4.2008 and thereafter, they have no enforceable right. Relying on the judgments of the Apex Court reported in GURSHARAN SINGH v. NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COMMITTEED (AIR 1996 SC 1175), STATE OF U.P. v. NEERAJ AWASTHI (2006)1 SCC 667, UNION BANK OF INDIA v. M.T.LATHEESH 2006 Supreme Court Cases (L & S) 1646, SECRETARY, STATE OF KARNATAKAA v. UMADEVI (2006)4 SCC 1, STATE OF U.P. v. DESH RAJ (2007)1 SCC 257, INDIAN COUNCIL OF MEDICAL RESEARCH v. K.RAJYALAKSHMI (2007)2 SCC 332, INDIAN DRUGS & PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. v. WORKMEN, INDIAN DRUGS & PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. (2007)1 SCC 408, STATE OF MANIPUR v. KSH. MORANGNINTHOU SINGH (2007)10 SCC 544, C.S.AZAD KRISHI EVAM PRODYOGIKI VISHWAVIDYALAYA v. UNITED TRADES CONGRESS (2008)2 SCC 552, the learned senior counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioners are appointed on contract basis for a period of two years and as soon as the period came to an end, they cease to be employees and this court cannot grant direction to reinstate and regularize their services. With regard to contempt he stated that as the tenure of appointment ended, the petitioners were disengaged and for that no separate order need be passed and this court also held that the interim stay will not come in the way of the respondents 3 and 4 in terminating their services in accordance with law and as the tenure itself ended, they were disengaged and there is no violation of the interim orders of this court and alternatively he contended that the petitioners approached this court in the contempt proceedings after more than an year, and hence the contempt case is barred by limitation and cannot be entertained. With these averments, he sought to dismiss the writ petition and the contempt case. 13. The learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 also reiterating the averments made in the counter aﬃdavit, sought for disposal of the writ petition. 14. From the above material on record, the case of the petitioners is that they were engaged as Sweepers on NMR basis in the respondent – college from the years 1986, 1987, 1988, 1996, 2000, 1998 and 1995 respectively. It is alleged that during the year 2005-2006, when they made demand for regularization, they were made to work under Sri Satya Sai Investigations and Security Services, Vijayawada. The competent authority under the Provident Fund Act, 1951 by order dated 25.9.1992 directed the respondents 3 and 4 to admit the petitioners as members of the Employees Provident Fund and further directed them to contribute the employers share of contribution to the Provident Fund. Their further case is that in the list submitted by respondents 3 and 4 to the 5th respondent – AICTE for the year 2006-07, their names were shown under the heading ‘Maintenance Department’. As they are working since more than 15 years, sought a direction to the respondents to regularize their service in terms of the proceedings No.E2/5263/91 dated 27.6.1991 and also proceedings dated 4.10.1991 wherein the management has agreed to the 2nd respondent, to extend pay scales and regularize the services of non-teaching staﬀ and would also refrain from making any ad hoc appointments. 15. On the other hand, the respondents 3 and 4 have disputed the averment of the petitioners that they are working since 1986, 1987, 1988, 1996, 2000, 1998 and 1995 respectively. Their case is that the petitioners are engaged as contract labour supplied by a labour contractor Sri Satya Sai Investigatin and Security Services Pvt., as a stop gap arrangement, as there are no sanctioned or created post. However, by proceedings dated 27.11.2006 they were appointed as Sweepers/Scaveners in the Maintenance Department for a period of two years, which was valid up to 30.4.2008 and thereafter there was no extension. Though they stated that they are engaged between 1986 to 2000, they produced pay slips only from 2006. The respondents 3 and 4 have also disputed the proceedings dated 29.5.1992 on the ground they are issued in violation of the mandatory provisions contained in Sections 7 and 7-A of the Act, 1951. 16. Though the petitioners stated that they were appointed during the years 1986 to 2000, no tangible material is made available to this court and there is any amount of dispute with regard to the years of appointment, as stated by the petitioners. This court cannot delve into the disputed questions of fact. The case of the petitioners is that in the list submitted by respondents 3 and 4 to the 5th respondent for the year 2006-07, their names were shown under the maintenance department. The respondents 3 and 4 also in the counter stated that by proceedings dated 27.11.2006, the petitioners were appointed only for a period of two years. A copy of the proceedings issued by the Chairman of the college in Ref:KLCE/4/4/2006-07 dated 27-11-2006, and stated to be served on the petitioners, is made available to this court and same was not disputed. A perusal of the said proceedings would show that the petitioners along with others were appointed as Sweepers/Scavengers in the Maintenance Department up to 30.4.2008. In the counter aﬃdavit ﬁled on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 it is stated that the 3rd respondent – Management stated in his letter No.KLCE/A15/124/2009 dated 29.9.2009 that all the petitioners were appointed on ad hoc basis for a period of two years with eﬀect from 1.12.2006 to 30.4.2008 and their services would automatically stand terminated after expiry of their tenure. In these circumstances, as the respondents 3 and 4 have appointed the petitioners only for a period of two years, this court under the writ jurisdiction, cannot direct the respondents to reinstate them and regularize their services. 17. The contention of the counsel for the petitioners is that when there was strike by the Teaching and non-teaching staﬀ of K.L.College of Engineering, Vasdeswaram, an agreement was arrived at between the management of the college and the striking staﬀ and thereby the Commissioner of Technical Education, Andhra Pradesh by proceedings No.E2/5263/91 dated 27.3.1991 recorded the agreement entered into between both the parties and as per the said proceedings, the management has agreed to extend the pay scales and would refrain from making ad hoc appointments and that the appointment shall only be through staﬀ selection committee and the petitioners, who are sweepers are covered under the said proceedings. Subsequently also the Commissioner of Technical Education – 2nd respondent by Lr.No.E2/5263/91 dated 4.10.1991 addressed to the Secretary and Correspondent of the K.L.College of Engineering stated that there shall not be any ad hoc appointments and further noticed that the management is yet to regularize the services of most of the staﬀ and also directed to open service registers of the employees. Therefore, when the management has agreed not to appoint Sweepers on ad hoc basis under proceedings dated 27.3.1991, they cannot contend that the services of the petitioners were taken on NMR basis through a contract labour. Therefore, the learned counsel sought to implement the proceedings dated 27.3.1991 and 4.10.1991. 18. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3 and 4 produced proceedings of the 2nd respondent – Commissioner of Technical Education, in Lr.E4/3773/2008 dated 7.3.2009, addressed to the General Secretary, KLCE non-Teaching Staﬀ Association. A perusal of the said proceedings shows that the KLCE Non-Teaching Staﬀ Association has made a representation containing 14 grievances and decision of the Commissioner in that regard. In the said proceeding, demand no.12 and the decision, which is relevant, is extracted as under: “Demand No.12: As per proceedings No.E2/5263/91 dated 27.6.1991 of the competent authority i.e., the Commissioner & Director of Technical Education, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad “There shall not be any ad hoc appointment for Non-Teaching Staﬀ” all the non-teaching staff who are working on ad hoc basis should be regularized. Decision: The legality of such directive was examined and conclusion is drawn that it is not appropriate for competent authority to issue orders to the Management asking them not to appoint the staﬀ on Ad hoc/Time- bound/Contract basis in the absence of Government Orders.” 19. Therefore, from the above proceedings dated 7.3.2009 it is clear that the 2nd respondent has informed the General Secretary of the KLCE Non Teaching Staﬀ Association, that in the absence of any Government Orders, asking the management of the college not to make ad hoc appointment of non-teaching staﬀ, is not appropriate. In the light of proceedings dated 7.3.2009, the contention of the petitioners that the management cannot make appointment of non- teaching staﬀ on ad hoc basis, cannot be sustained and in these circumstances, the petitioners cannot seek to enforce the proceedings 27.6.1991 and 4.10.1991 under the writ jurisdiction, in the light of the disputed questions of fact. 20. In view of these circumstances, as the petitioners are appointed by proceedings dated 27.11.2006 only for a period of two years, up to 30.4.2008 and thereafter as there was no extension, and as the petitioners failed to show that they were engaged by the respondents 3 and 4 ranging from 1986 to 2000, this court is of the considered view, that the petitioners failed to make any enforceable right and hence, no writ can be issued for continuing them and to regularize their services. 21. Coming to the contempt case, this court by interim order dated 8.2.2008 directed the respondents 3 and 4 to continue the petitioners in service pending the writ petition. On a vacate petition being ﬁled this court, by order dated 29.4.2008 while making the interim order absolute, modiﬁed the order to the eﬀect that the interim order will not come in the way of the respondents, in terminating or dispensing with the services of the petitioners, dully following the procedure prescribed by law. Complaining the violation of the interim orders of this court, the contempt case is filed. 22. The grievance of the petitioners is that in spite of the orders of this court, the respondents 3 and 4 refused to entertain them into service pending the writ petition. From the additional material papers ﬁled by the respondents 3 and 4, it could be seen that pursuant to the above interim orders of this court, the petitioners made representations on 7.12.2010 seeking the respondents to continue them as Sweepers. The cause of action arose for them immediately after they were disengaged from service. They kept quiet and made representations only on 7.12.2010 i.e., after a period of more than two years of the passing of the interim orders of this court and the contempt case was ﬁled on 27.4.2010 i.e., after a period of two years. 23. A Division Bench of this court in DR.SUBHENDU SEN (VSM) EX-LIEUTENANT COLONEL (ARMY) – MR 3152 V. SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR, SECREATY, MINISTSRYOF DEFENCE (2011(3) ALT 132) held that contempt proceedings either suo motu or otherwise cannot be initiated after expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted as under: “3.The order of the learned single Judge, dated 18.08.1999 in W.P.No.3923 of 1998, merged in the order of the Division Bench dated 30.06.2008 in W.A.No.1966 of 1999. It is not clear whether the said order was stayed by this Court, when the Government ﬁled review application. Be that as it is, the review application was disposed of on 27.02.2009. This contempt case was presented in the Registry on 28.06.2010. Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (Contempt Act, for brevity) bars a Court from “initiating any proceedings for contempt, either on its