AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. Prathap Narayan Sanghi, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Avadesh Narayan Sanghi, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. M. V. Rama Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2; and Mr. S. Rahul Reddy, learned Special Government Pleader attached to the office of the learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for respondent No.3. Perused the record.
The present contempt case has been filed alleging wilful disobedience of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.724 of 2023, dated 02.06.2024.
Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the contemnors has produced a memorandum dated 19.08.2026, issued from the office of the Chairman, Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board, indicating that, out of the 17 applicants before this Bench, 13 persons, upon due scrutiny, have been found fit for appointment and the Board has recommended issuance of appointment orders in respect of those 13 candidates. Out of the said 13 candidates, eight (08) candidates belong to MZ-1 and five (05) candidates belong to MZ-2.
At this juncture, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, out of the said 13 candidates who have been found fit for appointment, one (01) candidate in MZ-1, namely, Raju Lade, has since been selected in the Telangana Judicial Services and has also been appointed as a Judicial Officer. Therefore, there is no likelihood of his accepting the present appointment and the post would consequently fall vacant. Likewise, a candidate in MZ-2, namely, Angam Kranthi Ramana, unfortunately expired during the pendency of the litigation before this Court and, consequently, a vacancy has arisen in MZ-2 on account of his demise. He further submits that the remaining writ petitioners, who could not be considered against the existing vacancies despite the efforts made by the respondents, may also be considered in accordance with law.
The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that, in respect of the post relatable to Raju Lade, if he is not interested in the said post, the next meritorious candidate in the BC-D category from among the other six (06) candidates of MZ-1 would be considered and appointed.
It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that, among the remaining candidates, none belongs to MZ-2 and that the other candidates belonging to MZ-2 cannot be accommodated against the vacancy available in MZ-2, as the same would be in violation of the Presidential Order.
At this juncture, the learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner submits that there is still one vacancy in the SC category and that, among the remaining candidates who could not be accommodated, one candidate, namely, G. R. Sridhar, belongs to the SC category and may also be considered by the respondents.
In response to the submission of the learned Senior Counsel, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents makes a fair submission that this aspect would be scrutinized and, if it is found that there is still one vacancy available in the SC category, the next meritorious candidate from among the candidates belonging to the SC category would be considered. Moreover, it has been pointed out that Mr. G. R. Sridhar has already filed a contempt case vide C.C. No.849 of 2024, which is pending consideration before the appropriate Bench. After exploring the possibility of accommodating Mr. G. R. Sridhar, an appropriate report would be placed by the respondents before the concerned Court where the said contempt case is pending.
Having taken note of the aforesaid factual matrix of the case, and more particularly, taking note of the fact that, out of the 17 candidates, the respondents have already issued a memorandum in favour of 13 candidates, and out of the said 13 candidates, one (01) candidate has already secured employment elsewhere and the possibility of his accepting the present appointment does not appear likely, and further taking note of the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents that they would consider the next meritorious candidate against the vacancy that may arise, the figure would thereby stand at 14 candidates to be accommodated out of the 17 candidates pursuing the proceedings before this Court. This, in the opinion of this Bench, constitutes substantial compliance with the order passed by the Division Bench, insofar as redressal of the grievance of the petitioners is concerned.
As regards the remaining candidates who could not be accommodated, their rights are reserved to take appropriate legal recourse, if they are otherwise able to make out a case. Such issues, however, cannot be examined by this Bench in exercise of its contempt jurisdiction.
With the aforesaid observations, the present contempt case is closed at this juncture. The right of the petitioner to take appropriate legal recourse, in accordance with law, is kept open.
Meanwhile, the memorandum dated 19.08.2026 produced by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents is taken on record.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.