Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
V. Balunaik, vs Santhosa Rao, on 24 October, 2025
APHC010006682024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA
PRADESH
[3329]
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF OCTOBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 1018/2024
Between:
1. V. BALUNAIK,, S/O. LATE CHAKRENAIK, AGED ABOUT
50 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.4-381, SRINIVAS NAGAR, FILER,
ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT.
2. NAGIREDDYHAMADH REDDY,, S/O. VENKATARAMANA
REDDY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O.D.NO. 10-1394,
VINAYAKA NAGAR, MULAKALACHERUVU, ANNAMAYYA
DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. SANTHOSA RAO, CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING
DIRECTOR, APSPDCL, CORPORATE OFFICE, TIRUPATI.
2. VIJAYANAND IAS, PRL. SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
ENERGY, GOVERNMENT OF A.P., A.P. SECRETARIAT,
VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
...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 respondents
NV,J
CC.No.1018 of 2024
2
for willful dis-obedience of the order dated 14-09-2023 in W.P.No.
24059/2023 on the file of this Hon'ble Court U/s. 10 to 12 of
Contempt of Courts Act and pass
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. M PITCHAIAH
Counsel for the Contemnor(S):
1. Venkata Rama Rao Kota, SC FOR APSPDCL
2. K NARSI REDDY
NV,J
CC.No.1018 of 2024
3
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
CONTEMPT CASE No.1018 of 2024
This Court made the following
ORDER
1. This Contempt Case has been filed complaining the willful disobedience in implementing the Order dated 14.09.2023 passed by this Court in W.P.No.24059 of 2023.
2. The petitioners filed W.P.No.24059 of 2023 to declare the action of the respondents in not treating the petitioners on par with similarly situated persons like Pothugunta Tulasi Prasad and others, in giving appointment by transfer or conversion to the post of Junior Engineers to the petitioners in the 1st respondent Corporation, as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the principles of natural justice and consequently to direct the respondents to give appointment by transfer or conversion to the petitioners to the posts of Junior Engineers.
3. On 14.09.2023, this Hon'ble Court was pleased to dispose of the W.P.No. 24059 of 2023, which reads as follows:
NV,J CC.No.1018 of 2024 4 "Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider the cases of the petitioners for appointment by transfer/conversion to the posts of Junior Engineers' (JEs) in the 1st Respondent Corporation as and when the vacancies are available. There shall be no order as to costs."
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that, as linemen the petitioners have rendered service more than 30 years in the organization of the respondent, the 1st petitioner had acquired with the qualification of the Diploma in Electrical Engineering in May, 2015 and the 2nd petitioner acquired the said qualification in the year 2008. As per the rules the petitioners are eligible to be appointed by transfer to the post of Junior Engineers on par with similarly situated persons. As the petitioners' claim was not considered, they were constrained to file W.P.No.24059/2023 before this Hon'ble Court and same was disposed of on 14.09.2023 directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for appointment by transfer or conversion to the post of Junior Engineers in the Corporation of the Respondent as and when vacancies are available.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that under Right To Information Act, the petitioners made an application NV,J CC.No.1018 of 2024 5 requesting to furnish information regarding the availability of number of vacancies of Junior Engineers in Tirupathi Circle. The Public Information Officer vide his letter dated 19.12.2023 informed that there are 132 sanctioned vacancies of Junior Engineers in operation circle of Tirupathi and there are 10 vacancies of Junior Engineers to be filled up as on 19.12.2023. In view of above letter, it is clear that vacancies are available as on the date of orders of this Court.
6. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners filed additional affidavit on behalf of the 1st petitioner, wherein it is stated that the 2nd petitioner herein is figuring at Serial No.22 in the list of Seniority of Linemen of O & M Staff prepared by the authorities in the Tirupathi Circle of the Corporation of the 1st Respondent for appointment by transfer to the post of Junior Engineer. The 2nd petitioner belongs to OC and he is working as Lineman in Tirupathi Circle and he acquired the qualification of EEE (Diploma) in August, 2008. Whereas one Tulasi Prasad who is working as Line Inspector in Tirupathi Circle and who is figuring as at Serial No.33 of the above list of O & M staff prepared for the purpose of seniority of O & M staff for appointment by transfer to the post of Junior Engineer and he was appointed by transfer as NV,J CC.No.1018 of 2024 6 Junior Engineer on 29.08.2023 (It is prior to the orders of this Court)
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner asserts that in spite of specific directions of this Court vide order dated 14.09.2023, to appoint the petitioners by transfer/conversion to the posts of Junior Engineers, the respondents are deliberately avoiding to implement the orders of this Court and deliberately flouted the orders of this Court. The failure on the part of the respondents in implementing the orders of this Court would amount to disobedience of the orders of this Hon'ble Court, and, therefore, they are liable for punishment under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Complaining the same, the petitioners filed the present Contempt Case.
8. Respondent No.1 - Chairman and Managing Director, APSPDCL filed counter stating that the petitioners are working at their organization i.e., APSPDCL, Operation & Maintenance wing against cadre of Lineman and at present working in the cadre of Line Inspectors in Operation Circle, Tirupati. In fact, the petitioners were initially appointed as helpers in the year 1993/1996. Later on they were promoted to subsequent NV,J CC.No.1018 of 2024 7 promotion cadre i.e., Assistant Linemen, Linemen, Line Inspectors. Further, the petitioners acquired Diploma in Electrical Engineering without availing prior intimation to the appointing authority and without getting permissions to pursue and complete said courses respectively. It is further mentioned in the counter that comprehensive orders were issued by the APTRANSCO on the recognition of diplomas awarded by the universities / deemed universities / institutions in compliance of the directions of Hon'ble High Court in W.P.No.16355 of 2007. As per the orders the diplomas awarded to the programmes offered through distance education mode by Institute of Advanced Studies in Education (IASE), Rajasthan are not recognized for recruitment, promotions, incentive increments or any other service benefits. Further, the memo dated 16.12.2010, the APTRANSCO had issued orders on the non-recognition of degrees awarded to the courses offered under distance mode through study centers by other state universities beyond the territorial jurisdiction basing on the clarification of A.P State Council of Higher Education letter dated 05.07.2010 and it is as follows:
"The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held the view that, the Parliament alone is competent to enact laws for any part or for the whole country and the NV,J CC.No.1018 of 2024 8 state legislature can enact law only in respect to its territorial jurisdiction confined to the concerned state.
The UGC has further directed the State Universities to stop operating beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the State in any manner either in the form of off-campus/study center/affiliated colleges and centers operating through franchises."
9. A.P State Council of Higher Education based on the above orders have clarified that, the Degrees awarded to the courses offered under the distance mode through study centers by other State universities beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the respective state are not legally valid.
10. Further instructions were issued by APTRANSCO vide circular memo dated 13.09.2013 on the non-recognition of degrees/diplomas awarded to the courses offered under distance mode through study centers by the deemed to be universities, wherein it is stated as follows:
"(i) Institute of Advanced Studies in Education (IASE), Rajasthan is a deemed to be university recognized by University Grants Commission under Section 3 of UGC Act, 1956. The deemed to be universities run their academic programs defined under section 22 of UGC Act through classroom teaching mode only.
(ii) UGC has not given approval to any deemed to be university either for starting their academic programs through distance mode or to run study centers in various parts of the country for this purpose. (UGC vide notice F.6-9/2001 (CPP.1) dated 23.08.2005) NV,J CC.No.1018 of 2024 9
(iii) UGC has not approved the conditional ex-post facto approval given by the distance education council to the said universities for their academic programmes offered through distance education mode up to the year 2005 for which the approval of the UGC is mandatory.
(iv) The UGC vide letter No.F.6-25/2001 (CPP.1) has clearly stated that, the UGC regrets its inability to grant ex-post facto approval for study centers run under distance mode offering various courses by IASE and directed to close down their study centers immediately.
(v) As per the notification F.No.DEC/website dated 05.01.2006, the DEC clarified that, the State Universities / deemed to be Universities are not permitted to offer distance education outside the state of their location and private study centers / franchising are not permissible.
(vi) Further, it is to submit that, as per the Gazette Notification No.44 dated 01.03.1995 of Government of India, Degree/Diploma not recognized by DEC will not be considered eligible for Government Services.
(vii) In case of professional courses like Engineering, AICTE is repeatedly issuing public notices cautioning the students stating that, it has been the policy of the AICTE, not to recognize the qualifications acquired through distance education mode at Diploma, Bachelors and masters level in the fields of Engineering (vide Advt.No.UB/04(01)/2011 of AICTE)
(viii) The UGC which is an appropriate and authorized body has not recognized the distance education programs and the study centers of the deemed to be universities.
(ix) It is also clarified that, the AICTE itself stated that, its approval is mandatory for professional programs and UGC for general educational programmes. The AICTE has not granted approval to any university to run engineering course under distance mode."
NV,J CC.No.1018 of 2024 10
11. Learned Standing Counsel for APSPDCL filed reply affidavit contending that the petitioners are comparing and relied with respect to one P. Tulasi Prasad who is working in the cadre of Line Inspector and whereas, the petitioner No.1 became Line Inspector in the month of February, 2024 from the cadre of Lineman and petitioner No.2 is working in the cadre of Lineman only. More over the alleged appointment of one Sri P. Tulasi Prasad is much prior to the orders of this Court, i.e., on 29.08.2023. Hence, the case of P. Tulasi Prasad has no avail for comparison to the petitioners herein. He further submits that it is clearly stated with regard to the instructions issued by statutory authorities with regard to consideration of Diploma's acquired through Distance Mode and in view of the same the petitioners failed to substantiate their claim with justification before this Hon'ble Court. On the other hand, they did not file any piece of evidence or proved any action of the respondent which is in deviation of the orders of this Court.
12. Respondent No.2 filed counter-affidavit wherein it is contended that in compliance of directions of this Hon'ble Court the 1st Respondent considered the request of petitioners as per their eligibility in consonance with prevailing Service Regulations NV,J CC.No.1018 of 2024 11 and issued speaking orders dated 15.06.2024 vide Memos.No.SE / O / TPT / PO / ADM / JAO- I / S1 /F.No. / LC / D.No.1360/24 & D.No.1361/24. As such, he did not violate the orders of this Court and also tendered unconditional apology to this Hon'ble Court for any inconvenience was caused by him to be pardoned and further prayed to close contempt case against him.
13. Having heard the submissions of the respective counsel and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court carefully examined the material available on record and the averments made in the affidavits filed by the respondents.
14. Therefore, the said action of the respondents cannot be visualized in the given circumstances and evidence brought before this Court as there is any willful disobedience or in violation of the orders passed by this Court. It is clear case of misunderstanding on part of the petitioners alleging that the respondents are liable for contempt. Therefore, this Court inclined to hold that there is neither violation nor disobedience on part of respondents. Hence, this Court inclined to held that the petitioners failed to establish any violation.
NV,J CC.No.1018 of 2024 12
15. Therefore, in view of proper compliance by the Respondents with the orders dated 14.09.2023 in W.P.No.24059 of 2023, bypassing a speaking order, the Contempt Case is closed.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall also stand closed.
_____________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA Date:24.10.2025 KRK NV,J CC.No.1018 of 2024 13 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CONTEMPT CASE NO.1018 OF 2024 Date:24.10.2025 KRK