(B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.)
Civil Appeal No. of 2024 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 5063 of 2014), decided on November 27, 2024
Commnr. of Intermediate Education __________________ Appellant;
v.
Y. Kumar Swamy and Others ___________________ Respondent(s).
With
Civil Appeal No. of 2024
(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 10271 of 2014)
Civil Appeal No. of 2024
(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 10272 of 2014)
Civil Appeal No. of 2024 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 5063 of 2014); Civil Appeal No. of 2024 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 10271 of 2014); and Civil Appeal No. of 2024 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 10272 of 2014)
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B.R. Gavai, J.:—
1. Leave granted.
2. The appeals challenge the judgment and order dated 29.11.2013 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, thereby directing the appellants, who were the various officers of the State Government to remain present in the Court and show cause as to why an action for committing contempt of the Court be not initiated against them.
3. In a writ petition filed by the respondents, interim order(s) came to be passed by the High Court, directing that the writ petitioners shall be continued in service for a period of six weeks from the said date. However, on an application filed by the State, the interim order(s) came to be vacated.
4. The order vacating the interim order(s) specifically notes that the writ petitioners were not appointed on regular basis and that they were appointed on contractual basis. It also notes that subsequently the State had made regular appointments after undertaking a selection process through Public Service Commission.
5. While doing so, the State had also adopted the principle of last come first go with regard to the lecturers, who were already working on contractual basis.
6. In that view of the matter, we do not find that the High Court was justified in issuing notice of contempt and that too directing the officer of the Government to remain personally present on the very first day.
7. This court had reiterated, time and again, that the personal presence of the Government Officers should not be casually directed by the Courts, inasmuch as they are required to be on field for performing their official duties.
8. In that view of the matter, we find that the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is not sustainable.
9. The appeals are allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated passed by the High Court dated 29.11.2013 are quashed and set aside.
10. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
———
