9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility for Promotion 2. Disobedience of Court Orders 3. Judicial Indiscipline by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal 4. Retrospective Amendment of Service Rules 5. Contempt of Court Proceedings Detailed Analysis: 1. Eligibility for Promotion: The third respondent was promoted to the post of Assistant Commissioner of Endowments despite not being eligible as per the statutory rules. The petitioner, who was the senior-most eligible officer, was overlooked. The third respondent's promotions were facilitated by higher-level officers and were contrary to the service rules, which did not include the post of Special Category Stenographer as a feeder post for the promotion to Assistant Commissioner. 2. Disobedience of Court Orders: The court observed that the orders of this Court were disobeyed by the concerned officers by finding one lame justification or the other. Despite the Court's suspension of the tribunal's order promoting the third respondent, he continued to hold the post of Assistant Commissioner and was further promoted to Deputy Commissioner. The official respondents failed to implement the Court's orders even after the Supreme Court dismissed the third respondent's appeal, leading to the filing of the contempt case. 3. Judicial Indiscipline by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal: The Vice Chairman of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal acted in gross judicial indiscipline amounting to contempt of this Court by passing an order interdicting the implementation of the Court's orders. The tribunal's interim orders directly interfered with the final order of this Court, which had attained finality. The court highlighted the need for judicial discipline and the supremacy of the constitutional court. 4. Retrospective Amendment of Service Rules: The service rules were amended in 2006 to include Special Category Stenographers as a feeder post for the promotion to Assistant Commissioner. The third respondent sought retrospective effect for this amendment, which was rejected by the Government. The tribunal's order suspending the Government's rejection was also found to be improper as it interfered with the Court's final orders. 5. Contempt of Court Proceedings: The court found the official respondents guilty of willful disobedience of its orders. Despite the Court's interim and final orders, the third respondent was promoted, and the orders were not implemented timely. The court noted that the official respondents aided the third respondent in defying the Court's orders. The contempt case was admitted, and the respondents were directed to appear for imposing an appropriate sentence. Conclusion: The writ petition was allowed with costs, and the contempt case was listed for further proceedings. The court emphasized the need for adherence to judicial hierarchy and the implementation of its orders to maintain the rule of law and the prestige of the judiciary. The tribunal's order was suspended, and the parties were directed to agitate the matter before the tribunal in accordance with the law.
|
