Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Shaik Jahir Ahmed vs Adityanath Das on 17 September, 2025
Author: R Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R Raghunandan Rao
1
RRR,J& TCDS,J
C.C.No.728 of 2019
APHC010300682019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3529]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 728/2019
Between:
1. SHAIK JAHIR AHMED, S/O NAZEER AHMED, AGED ABOUT 35
YEARS, OCC UNEMPLOYEE, R/O MADERA STREET, HILL ROAD,
ATMAKUR MANDAL, S.P.S.R. NELLORE DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. ADITYANATH DAS, IAS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO SCHOOL
EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI,
AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT,
2. SMT K SANDHYA RANI, COMMISSIONER OF SCHOOL EDUCATION,
GOVT. OF A.P., 4TH FLOOR, B-BLOCK, VTPS ROAD,
IBRAHIMPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT-521456,
3. SRI M JANARDHANA CHARYULU, DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL
OFFICER, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.
4. SRI KONA SASIDHAR I A S, PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO SCHOOL
EDUCATION SECRETARIAT VELAGAPUDI AMARAVATI GUNTUR
DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH
5. SRI V VIJAYA RAMA RAJU, COMMISSIONER OF SCHOOL
EDUCATION GOVT OF A P 4TH FLOOR B BLOCK VTPS ROAD
IBRAHIMPATNAM KRISHNA DISTRICT 521456
2
RRR,J& TCDS,J
C.C.No.728 of 2019
6. SRI R BALAJI RAO, DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER NELLORE
SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT RR4 TO 6 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER
COURT ORDER DATED 16 06 2025 VIDE I A NO 1 OF 2019 IN C C
NO 728 OF 2019
...CONTEMNOR(S):
Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act 1971 praying
that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit file herein the High Court may
be pleased to punish the contemnors/respondents under Section 10 86 12 of
the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 for their intentional, deliberate, willful violation and disobedience in not implementing the Orders of the Hon'ble High Court dated 12.07.2017 in WP.No.793 of 2016 passed by their Lordships Hon'ble Sri Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Hon'ble Sri Justice U. Durga Prasada Rao and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the petitioner to implead the proposed respondent Nos.4, 5 & 6 as Respondent Nos.4, 5 & 6 in the above Contempt Case and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. T S N SUDHAKAR Counsel for the Contemnor(S):
1. RAMALINGESWARA RAO KOCHARLA KOTA
2. K BHEEMA RAO
3. V K NAIDU The Court made the following order:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) Heard Sri T.S.N. Sudhakar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ramalingeswara Rao Kocharla Kota, Sri K. Bheema Rao and Sri V.K. Naidu, learned counsel for the respondents. 3
RRR,J& TCDS,J C.C.No.728 of 2019
2. The petitioner had applied for the post of Urdu Teacher, in the Teacher Recruitment, conducted in 2014. However, his application was not accepted by the respondents on the ground that he does not possess the necessary academic qualification. The contention of the respondents was that the candidate must possess a Teacher's Degree with Urdu as the main subject or one of the three optional subjects or should possess a Bachelor's Degree in oriental language in Urdu or its equivalent or a Post Graduate Degree in Urdu and B.Ed with Urdu as Methodology or Urdu Pandit Training or its equivalent. The respondents contend that the petitioner, was not eligible, as he studied B.Sc with Urdu as one of the languages and that his subsequent acquisition of B.Ed Urdu as Methodology was not sufficient.
3. Aggrieved by this rejection, the petitioner approached the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, by way of O.A.No.2663 of 2015, which came to be dismissed on 13.11.2015. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner approached the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, by way of W.P.No.793 of 2016. A Division Bench of this Court allowed the Writ Petition, by an order dated 12.07.2017, directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to participate in the first available recruitment process, conducted, after the date of the order.
4
RRR,J& TCDS,J C.C.No.728 of 2019
4. The petitioner had now approached this Court, by way of the present Contempt Case contending that the respondents were not allowing the petitioner to participate in the recruitment process itself and the same would amount to violation of the orders of the Court.
5. The 2nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit it was stated that the petitioner, on the basis of the directions of this Court had participated in the DSC-2018 recruitment. In the said selection process, the petitioner, who was seeking appointment, in Nellore, had obtained 8th rank in Nellore District while there were only seven vacancies available in Nellore District. Further, four of these posts had been carried forward on account of non-availability of candidates, in the earlier recruitment, in the respective reserved categories. The 2ndrespondent would submit that it is on account of the fact that the respondent was not within the first seven ranks that he was not given employment. The petitioner filed a reply to this counter affidavit and stated that the posts which had been carried forward, were not filled up and that he could have been accommodated in those vacancies. He relied upon G.O.Ms.No.21, dated 12.02.2008 which provided for de-reservation of posts where candidates of the concerned reserved category were not available and contended that the said G.O could have been applied for giving him employment. A perusal of G.O.Ms.No.21, dated 12.02.2008, shows that this G.O was issued only in relation to the recruitment 5 RRR,J& TCDS,J C.C.No.728 of 2019 process undertaken in DSC-2006. This government order would not enure to the benefit of the petitioner.
6. The petitioner filed a reply notice to which he had attached certain proceedings. In proceedings dated 20.12.2019, the Commissioner of School Education passed an order, in relation to the petitioner. In this order, the Commissioner stated that all the seven posts available in Nellore District were reserved for various reserved categories other than BC-E category, to which the petitioner belongs. The order further stated that in such circumstances, the case of the petitioner cannot be accepted. The petitioner also enclosed G.O.Ms.No.144, dated 02.08.2016, under which the posts of Language Pandit Grade-II were upgraded to the post of School Assistant. The petitioner also produced G.O.Ms.No.91, dated 17.12.2018, in which the remaining posts of Language Pandit Grade-II was upgraded to that of School Assistant.
7. A conspectus of all these documents would show that the posts of Language Pandit (Urdu) which were available in DSC-2018 were all reserved for various reserved categories, which did not include BC-E category, to which the petitioner belonged. In such circumstances, the petitioner would not be entitled to be appointed against any vacancy, which may have remained, on account of non-availability of candidates of that reserved category.
6
RRR,J& TCDS,J C.C.No.728 of 2019
8. In the circumstances, we cannot hold that there was any willful disobedience of the orders of the Court.
9. Accordingly, this Contempt Case is closed.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________ R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO,J _______________ T.C.D.SEKHAR,J RJS 7 RRR,J& TCDS,J C.C.No.728 of 2019 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO & HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR CONTEMPT CASE No.728 of 2019 (per Hon'ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) Dt: 17.09.2025 RJS