CC/776/2022 of Regonda Srinivas Vs Mr Gurudeep Singh on 30 December 2022

1. Regonda Srinivas, Age . 46 years, S/o. Rajanna, Occ. Unemployed,R/o.H.No.3-5-1 39/B, Ramnagar, - Ramagundam-505208, Dist. Peddapalli, T.S.H.No.3-5-1 39/B, Ramnagar, - Ramagundam-505208, Dist. Peddapalli, T.S.

2. CH. Srinivas Reddy, Age . 46 years, S/o. Thimma Reddy, Occ. . Unemployed,R/o. H.No. 3-109, Gunturupalli, / Elkalapalli Post, Kamanpoor, PalakurthiMandal, Peddapalli Dist., T.S. 505188.R/o. H.No. 3-109, Gunturupalli, / Elkalapalli Post, Kamanpoor, PalakurthiMandal, Peddapalli Dist., T.S. 505188.

3. Vemula Venkateshwarlu, Age . 48 years, S/o. Ramaiah, Occ. Uncmployed,R/o. H.No. 16-10-5512, Kalyanagar,Godavarikhani, Ramagundam Mandal,Peddapalli Dist . T.S.R/o. H.No. 16-10-5512, Kalyanagar,Godavarikhani, Ramagundam Mandal,Peddapalli Dist . T.S.

4. Ettineni Vaikuntam, Age . 44 years, S/o. Sambaiah, Occ. Unemployed,R/o.H No.3-1-203, Malyalapalli, Ramagundam Mandal, Peddapalli Dist., T.S.R/o.H No.3-1-203, Malyalapalli, Ramagundam Mandal, Peddapalli Dist., T.S.

5. Pandula Mallesham, Age . 47 years, S/o. Odelu, Occ. Unemployed,R/o.H.No. 3-5-316i7, Ayodhyanagar, Ramagundam, Ramagundam Mandal,Peddapalli Dist., T S.H.No. 3-5-316i7, Ayodhyanagar, Ramagundam, Ramagundam Mandal,Peddapalli Dist., T S.

6. Kummarikunta Thirupathi, Age 44 [years, ]S/o. Chandraiah, Occ.Unemployed, R/o. H.No. 4-5-116, Annapurna Colony, NTPC, Jyothinagar-505215, Ramagundam Mandal, Peddapalli Dist., T.S.Unemployed, R/o. H.No. 4-5-116, Annapurna Colony, NTPC, Jyothinagar-505215, Ramagundam Mandal, Peddapalli Dist., T.S.

7. Atla Prabhakar, Age . 49 years, S/o. Rajalingu, Occ.Unemployed,R/o. [H.No.]22-7-116, Kazipalli Village, Beside PTS Main Gate, NTPC, Jyothinagar-505215, Ramagundam (Mandal), Peddapalli Dist., T.S.22-7-116, Kazipalli Village, Beside PTS Main Gate, NTPC, Jyothinagar-505215, Ramagundam (Mandal), Peddapalli Dist., T.S.

,..PETITIONERS/ Respondents 1, 3, 7, 10, 12, 17,21

AND

1. Mr Gurudeep Singh, Chairman and Managing Director, NTPC [Limited, ][(A]Govt of lndia Enterprises). Regd Office.NTPC Bhavan, Scope [Complex, ][7]lnstitutional Area, Lodi Road, New Delhi 110003Govt of lndia Enterprises). Regd Office.NTPC Bhavan, Scope [Complex, ][7]lnstitutional Area, Lodi Road, New Delhi 110003

2. Mr Manikanth, General Manager (HR), NTPC Limited, Southern Region HeadQuarters, Kavadiguda. Secunderabad 500080 .. Respondents/ AppellantsQuarters, Kavadiguda. Secunderabad 500080 .. Respondents/ Appellants lA NO: 1 OF 2022

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated inthe affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased stay thecontemptuous Notificatron No.01 12022 dated 1-2-22 inviting fresh applicationforms for the post of Junior Mazdoor (WO Grade) and cancelling the entireprocess of subject recruitment issued vide Employment No.01/2017 dated 9-3-2017

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. K LAKSHMI NARASIMHA

Counsel for the RespondentNoS. 1 & 2: SRI D. PRAKASH REDDY SENIORCOUNSEL FOR MS. SUDHA

The Court made the following: ORDER

THE HON'BLE DT. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHERANDTHE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

CONTEMPT CASE No.776 of 2O22

ORDER: (Per Dr.sA,l)

This Contempt Case, under Sections 10 to 12 of theContempt of Courts Act, I971, is filed by the petitioner, to punishthe respondent herein for his wilful and deliberate non-complianceof the common [judgment ]dated 17.72.2021, passed by a DivisionBench of this Court in W.A.No.277 of 2020 and batch.

2. We have heard the submissions of Dr.K.Lakshmi Narsimha,learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri D.PrakashReddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Ms.Sudha, learnedcounsel for the respondents and perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that all thepetitioners herein are the absolute owners and possessors of thelands of various extents situated at different villages inRamagundam Mandal, Karimnagar District. The said lands wereacquired by the NTPC prior to 1980 and an award was [passed,]awarding compensation of the said land. All the [petitioners ]hereinwere declared as land oustees and Land Oustee Identity Cardswere also issued to them. Based upon the same, the petitioners herein enrolled their names in the Employment [Exchange,]Karimnagar under the category of Land Oustees. NPTC [has]introduced a scheme to [provide ]employment to the land oustees,apart from [granting ]compensation for the land acquired. As [per]the said scheme, the Collector shall [prepare ]a list of eligibledisplaced [persons ](land Oustees) for the [purpose ]of [providing]employment. All the [petitioners ]herein are eligible, [qualified ]andentitled to be considered and appointed in the said quota. Whileso, the NTPC has issued employment notification No.2/2015, dated15.05.2015 and requested the Employment Exchange,Karimnagar, for sponsoring names of land oustees ofRamagundam Super Thermal Power Station for filling up 25 postsof Junior Mazdoors in NTPC at Ramagundam. The said notificationwas issued pursuant to a decision taken in the meeting held on18.07.2014 and 12.03.2015 with the Minister of Home and Labour,Government of Telangana, wherein, it was agreed by the NTpC toinitiate recruitment process for filling up of 25 posts of JuniorMazdoors with eligible land oustees, immediately. Simultaneously,paper notification was also issued on 18.05.2015 calling forapplications from eligible candidates. The recruitment to fill up 25posts of Junior Mazdoors is a special drive recruitment, wherein,only eligible land oustees of Ramagundam STpS are entifled to

apply and was not a general recruitment. As per the saidnotification, the last date for receipt of application from thecandidates who are eligible for being sponsored by EmploymentExchange was 30.06.2015. Pursuant to the said notification, theemployment exchange sponsored 463 candidates vide their letterNo.2015/0018/0, dated 26.06.2015. The post of lunior Mazdoorsis a non-executive post and as per the Recruitment Policy andpractice of NTPC, recruitment to the said post is done byconducting interviews by a duly constituted Selection Committee.After receipt of applications, NTPC dispatched bio-data to all the462 candidates on 01.10.2015 advising them to submit requisitedetails as stipulated in the said form. The petitioners also receivedthe bio data sheets and accordingly, they have filled in the sameand sent it to NTPC. After verifying the said bio-data sheets andafter scrutiny, NTPC has dispatched interview call letters to all theeligible candidates, including the petitioners herein. Accordingly,interviews were held from 26.L2.2015 to 31.L2.2015 and all thepetitioners herein have participated in the said interviews. Thescreening and interviews were completed and only the declarationof results of the selected candidates was left over. While NTPCwas about to declare the results, a [person ]by name ChepyalaAravind Rao, who also [participated ]in the interview, filed W.P.No.26043 of 2016 before this Court challenging the [process ]ofselection. However, none of the affected [parties ]were made asparties in the above Writ Petition. A learned single Judge of thisCourt, vide order dated 14.12.2016, was [pleased ]to allow theabove said Writ Petition and the recruitment [process ]undertakenby NTPC, pursuant to the employment notification No.2/2015,dated 15.05.2015, was set aside. Challenging that order, one SriMarelly Raji Reddy has filed W.A.No.138/2017 before a DivisionBench of this Couft and a Division Bench of this Court was pleasedto allow the said Writ Appeal vide [judgment ]dated 37.OL.20L7 bysetting aside the order of the learned single Judge. However,liberty was granted to NTPC as to whether appointment should bemade pursuant to the selection process already undertaken orwhether a fresh selection process should be initiated. Thus, interms of the order, dated 31.01.2017, passed in W.A.No.13B of2077, a duty was cast upon NTPC to verify the facts alleged by thepetitioner in that Writ Petition. However, without making any suchefforts, NTPC issued a fresh Employment Notification No.01/2017,dated 09.03.2017. Challenging the said notification, three WritPetitions were filed, i.e., (1) Marelly Raji Reddy and nine othersfiled W.P.No.13222 of 2077; (2) Regonda Srinivas and others filedW.P.No.10252 of 2018; and (3) Vanamala Ramana Chary and others filed W.P.No.46B97 of 2018. This Court passed interimorder, dated 17.04.2017, in the said Writ Petition, suspending thefresh employment Notification No.01/2017. However, NTPC hasfiled vacate stay [petition ]vide I.A.No.1 of 2OI7 and the same wasdismissed by this Court, vide order, dated 21.02.2018. No appealwas filed challenging the order dated 21.02.2018. Thus, the freshemployment notification No.01/2017 stood suspended by thisCourt. In spite of this fact, NTPC did not go ahead with theappointment. Subsequently, the aforementioned W.P.No.13222 of2017, W.P.No.1O252 of 2018 and W.P.No.46B97 of 2018 wereallowed by this Court, vide order, dated t7.07.2020, and theEmployment Notification No.0L/20t7 , dated 09 .03.2017 , wasquashed. Aggrieved by the said order, NTPC have filed three WritAppeals vide W.A.No.270 of 2020, W.A.No.277 of 2020 andW.A.No.286 of 2020. A Division Bench of this Court, vide order,dated 14.09.2020, was [pleased ]to suspend the said order, holding-as follows:

"The operation of the Order, dated 17.07.2020, is hereby, stayed.It is also made clear that any selection under the impugnednotification shall be subject to the decision of this Court."It is also made clear that any selection under the impugnednotification shall be subject to the decision of this Court."

In spite of the above said order, NTPC did not [proceed ]with the recruitment process. Finally, this Court, vide common [judgment,]dated 17.L2.2021, was pleased to allow all the three Writ [Appeals]

by setting aside the order, dated 17.07.2020, [passed ][by a ][learned]single Judge of this Court. The operative [portion ]of the commonjudgment dated 77.L2.2021 is extracted below:

"The reasons for cancelling the earlier advertisement dated15.05.2015 are cogent and valid reasons and as the NTPC is now,adopting a transparent [process, ]the impugned order [passed ]by thelearned Single Judge is set aside.

The NTPC is directed to conclude the entire process of subjectrecruitment within a period of two months from today and issueconsequential appointment orders. With the aforesaid, the writappeals stand allowed.

The miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.There shall be no order as to costs,"

In view of the aforesaid [judgment, ]NTPC was required to completethe entire process of subject recruitment within a [period ]of twomonths from the date of the order i.e., 17.12.2021. The subjectrecruitment is of the year 2017. All that is required to be done byNTPC is to conduct examination of those persons whose nameswere sponsored from the Employment Exchange, which are readilyavailable with NTPC. NTPC did not follow the dicta laid down bythis Court. Respondent Nos. I and 2, being Chairman andManaging Director of NTPC and General Manager (HR), NTPC, haveno respect for the orders of this Court. Instead of completing therecruitment process, as directed by this Court, it had violated thesame with impunity by issuing another Fresh NotificationNo.I/2022, dated 0I.02.2022 and cancelled the recruitmentprccess initiated vide Employment Notification No.01/2017, dated 09.03.2017. The respondent No.2 has deliberately violated theorders of this Court by withdrawing the subject recruitmentNotification No.Ol/2017. By so doing, the petitioners herein, whowere eligible as per the Notification No.Ol/20L7, were excluded inthe Fresh Notification No.0L/2022. The fact that NTPC is notproceeding with conducting of examinations and straight awaygiving appointments orders itself is gross disobedience of theorders of this Court. After cancelling the subject recruitmentnotification No.01/2017 by way of fresh notification No.Ol/2022,NTPC filed I.A.No.U2022 seeking extension of time. Thisextension application was dismissed by this Court vide order,dated 11.03.2022. NTPC ought to have completed the recruitmentprocess vide Notification No.01/2017 by this time. But itpurposefully failed to do so and made the petitioners herein tosuffer. Thus, the respondents are guilty of contempt fordeliberately and wilfully violating the orders of this Court. ['Further,]SLP No.4350 of 2020 filed by the petitioners challenging the finalorders in the Writ Appeals, were dismissed by the Hon'bleSupreme Court vide order, dated L6.03.2022, and as such, ordersof this Court has become final. The respondents have got scantrespect to the orders which is evident by the fact that they havedeliberately violated the orders of this Court [passed ]in W.A.No.277

of 2O2O and Batch,, dated 17.72.202t, by a Division [Bench ]of [this]Court and deliberately avoiding to implement the orders of [this]Court and accordingly, [prayed ]to [punish ]the respondents for wilfuland deliberate non-compliance of the order, dated 17.72.2021,passed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.277 of 2020and batch.

4. Per contra, learned senior counsel appearing for therespondents would submit that as per NTPC's R&R Policy-'Policy onfacilities to be given to land-oustees'circulated vide CPC No.53/80,dated 19.06.1980, there is obligation on NTPC to [provide]employment to all the land oustees or their nominees. However,depending on the requirements and vacancy, [preference ]would begiven to the land oustees. The State Government will prepare thelist of nominees (of Land Oustees to [get ]the benefit in the form ofemployment or shop allotment etc. from NTPC) and forward. thesame to Employment Exchange, with a request to forward to theProject in the matter of their employment. NTPC had issuedEmployment Notification No.02l2015, dated 15.05.2015, andforwarded the same to Employment Exchange, Karimnagar, forsponsoring the names of Land Oustees of Ramagundam SuperThermal Power Station (for short, "the Project") for filling up 25posts of Junior Mazdoor (WO grade) in NTPC, RamagundaryLteegr--=\'hri -/1

I

i notifications were also issued calling for applications from eligiblecandidates in addition to candidates sponsored by EmploymentExchange. NTPC has provided employment to 496 land-oustees,since the inception of the Project. The following facilities were alsoextended to the Land Oustees or their nominees in lieu cifemployment from time to time: (i) Hiring of [jeeps ]from the LandOustees; (ii) Allotment of shops for running their business in theTownship; and (iii) Preference to Land Oustees in contractualengagements etc. Considering the nature of work and the amountof automation and digitization taking place in NTPC, requirementfor the last grade employment i.e. WO grade is very minimal andas such, there was no requirement for the post of WO grade, i.e.,Junior Mazdoor in NTPC. However, in pursuance of an agreementarrived at in a meeting called by the Minister for Home and Labour,Government of Telangana, NTPC, as a special case, agreed torecruit 25 Junior Mazdoors in WO grade from amongst the LandOustees of Ramagundam Project. The recruitment [process ]wasbased on only interview as [per ]the [prevailing ]policy at that time.Pursuant to the Employment Notification No.0212015, NTPC hassent call letters to candidates who were [prima ]facie found eligiblefor interview and interviews were held from 26th to 31't ofDecember, 2015. The short listing of the Candidates was done based on the interview. At this [juncture, ]one Aravind Rao, [who]was also interviewed for the above [post, ]challenged theNotification by filing W.P.No.26043 of 2016 before this Court. Alearned Single Judge of this Court had allowed said Writ Petition ont4.12.2016 by setting aside the Notification No.0212015 and theselection process undertaken till then and directed NTPC to followthe directions issued by Government of India regarding therecruitment of last [grade ]employees i.e., by conducting writtentest instead of interviews. Challenging the said order, one MarellyRaji Reddy, another Land Oustee, who appeared for the interviewheld [pursuant ]to Notification No.0212015, had filed W.A.No.13B of2017 before a Division Bench of this Court and the Division Benchof this Court vide [judgment ]dated 31.01.2017 had set aside theorder dated L4.72.2016 [passed ]by the learned Single Judge. Therelevant portion of the [judgement ]dated 31.01.2017, reads asfollows:

"... While the submission of Sri V, Ravi Kiran Rao, that severalirregularities were committed in the selection processt cannot bebrushed aside, il must also be borne in mind that the mere fact thatinterviews have been held does not confer any right on theparticipating candidates to claim appointment nor does it obligateNTPC to make appointments to the posts for which interviews wereconducted. Whether appointments should be made pursuant to theselection process, or whether a fresh selection process should beundertaken, are all matters for the 4th respondent to decide.Needless to state that the action taken by NTqC in this regard canalways be subJected to challenge, by any person aggrieved, insubseq uent I ega I proceed i ngs... "

Therefore, pursuant to the liberty granted by this Court, NTPCcancelled the Notification No.0212015 and issued fresh NotificationNo.Ol/20t7, dated 09.03.2017, for selection of lunior Mazdoor inWO grade by way of written test, after amending the recruitmentpolicy in tune with the Government of India's directions issued inthis regard. However, the said Notification No.01/2017 waschallenged by (1) Marelly Raji Reddy (in WP No.13222 of 2017);(2)Regonda Srinivas and others (in WP No.10252 of 2018) and(3)Vanamala Ramana Chary and others (in WP No.46897 of 2018)before this Court and the three Writ Petitions were allowed by alearned Single Judge of this Court, vide common order, dated17.07.2020 and Notification No,01/2017, dated 09.03.2017, wasquashed. The learned single Judge of this Court directed NTPC tocomplete the recruitment conducted in pursuance of thenotification No.0212015 within three months. The operative [portion]of the [judgement ]reads as follows:

",,, Therefore, the NTPC could not have cancelled the selections onthe ground which was held to be bad by the Hon'ble Division Benchin the order dated 31.01.2017 in W.A.NI.138 of 2017. [Therefore,]the impugned Notification dated 09.03.2017 issued by the [NTPC ][is]liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. The decision ofNTPC to cancel the earlier selections [made pursuant ]to theNotification dated 16.05.2015 is also liable [to ][be ][set ][aside ]as [it ][is]contrary to the findings of the [Hon'ble ]Division [Bench ][in ][W.A.No.138]of 2017, dated 31.01.2017, and accordingly, [it ][Is ][sef ][aside. ][The]NTPC is directed to conclude the selection [process ][initiated pursuant]to the Notification dated 16.05.2015 within [a ][reasonable ][period ][of]time, preferably within a [period ]of [Three ][(03) ][months ][from ]the [date]the ground which was held to be bad by the Hon'ble Division Benchin the order dated 31.01.2017 in W.A.NI.138 of 2017. [Therefore,]the impugned Notification dated 09.03.2017 issued by the [NTPC ][is]liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. The decision ofNTPC to cancel the earlier selections [made pursuant ]to theNotification dated 16.05.2015 is also liable [to ][be ][set ][aside ]as [it ][is]contrary to the findings of the [Hon'ble ]Division [Bench ][in ][W.A.No.138]of 2017, dated 31.01.2017, and accordingly, [it ][Is ][sef ][aside. ][The]NTPC is directed to conclude the selection [process ][initiated pursuant]to the Notification dated 16.05.2015 within [a ][reasonable ][period ][of]time, preferably within a [period ]of [Three ][(03) ][months ][from ]the [date]

of receipt of a copy of this order. With these [observations,]W.P.No.13222 of 2017 is allowed."

Aggrieved by the aforementioned order of the learned SingleJudge, NTPC filed three Writ Appeals viz., W.A.No.27O of [2020,]W.A.No.277 of 2020 and W.A.No.2B6 of 2020. A Division Bench ofthis Court, vide [judgment ]dated t7.12.2021, allowed all three WritAppeals by setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge.The operative portion of the [judgement ]dated 17.L2.2021 reads asfollows:

"The reasons for cancelling the earlier advertisement dated15.05.2015 are cogent and valid reasons and as the NTPC is nowadopting a transparent processl the impugned order [passed ]by thelearned Single ludge is set aside. The NTPC is directed to concludethe entire process of subject recruitment within a period of twomonths from today and issue consequential appointment orders."

A copy of the [judgment ]dated 17.12.2021 was made available onthe website of this Court on 22.72.2021. Keeping in view thejudgment cf this Court and several intervening factors that arosebetween 20t7 and 2021, a note was initiated on 25.12.2021 forconducting recruitment of 25 posts of Junior Mazdoor grade fromamongst the Land Oustees of Ramagundam by issuing a freshNotification No.Ol/2022 and cancelling the earlier NotificationNo.01/2017. The said proposal was approved by the competentauthority at NTPC and such approval was received on 28.01.2022with a direction to follow the age relaxation extended in the Notification No.Ol/20L7 with the new cut-off date to be fixedAccordingly, NTPC has issued a fresh Notification and cancelled theNotification No.01/2017 due to the following reasons:Accordingly, NTPC has issued a fresh Notification and cancelled theNotification No.01/2017 due to the following reasons:

a) The direction was to complete the subject recruitment for fillingthe 25 posts of Mazdoor from Land Oustee quota. Since the listavailable with NTPC was forwarded by the Employment Exchange inearly 20L7, the list lost its validity as per the guidelines issued byDOP&T, Govt of India.

b) The letter of sponsorship of the 2017 list also specifies thevalidity of the said list as three months. As such NTPC had no validsponsored list as on the date ofjudgement.

c) Since more than four years elapsed from the date of the 2017sponsored list, NTPC had to accommodate the additions anddeletions in the sponsored list on account of death, nomineechange, over age etc.

d) To make it more transparent and to have an updated list of LandOustees, NTPC again notified the vacancies and asked for fresh listfrom the Employment Exchange.

e) In the year 2019 a policy change was made by the Governmentof India by including reservation for Economically Weaker Sectionand also there was the inclusion of some disability types withrespect to extending reservation to PwD (Persons with BenchmarkDisability) which were not in the list before.

The new notification No.OL/2022 was issued after taking intoaccount these policy changes also. On receipt of approval for frdshrecruitment, NTPC has been carrying out the various ancillaryactivities connected to the recruitment viz., identification of anindependent recruitment agency, verification of sponsored list etc.Considering the time required for completing the recruitmentprocess after finalising the recruiting agency and getting sponsoredlist from theEraoployment Exchange and its scrutiny etc., NTPC has filed applications in the three Writ Appeals referred above forextension of time by another two months and for completing therecruitment by 30.04.2022. The applications were filed well withinthe time of two months granted by the Court and the petition waslisted for hearing on 11.03.2022. However, the Hon'ble Court hasrejected the extension petitions on 11.03.2022. The said order isreproduced below:

"The matter to recruitment in respect of Land Oustees. The landwas acquired tn the year 1996 and still the NTPC is praying forextension of time, The Court does not find any reason to grant anyfurther extension in the matter. The application for extension oftime is rejected."was acquired tn the year 1996 and still the NTPC is praying forextension of time, The Court does not find any reason to grant anyfurther extension in the matter. The application for extension oftime is rejected."

The Petitioners herein also filed SLP(C)No.4350 of 2022 before theHon'ble Supreme Court challenging the verdict of Division Benchdated t7.12.2O2I in W.A.N0.277 of 2020. However, the Hon'bleSupreme Court dismissed the petition at the admission stage itselfon 16.03.2022 and the Order reads as under:

"We see no reason to inteffere with the impugned judgementand order passed by the High Court in exercising of powerunder Article .1i6 of Constitution of India. The Special LeavePetitio n sta nd s d ism i ssed. "

NTPC, as on date, has finalized the merit list by way ofwritten test and issued the provisional offer of appointment to the25 candidates. The sequence of significant events that lead to issuance of Fresh Employment Notification No.01/2022 dated0L.02.2022, are as follows:0L.02.2022, are as follows:

a) Employment Notification No.O7/2O22 issued on 0L.O2,2.O2?.

b) Cut-off date for sponsoring the list by Employment Exchangeswas 22.02.2022.

c) Sponsored list along with other details from EmploymentExchanges - Karimnagar and Peddapalli were received vide lettersdated 07 .O3.2022 and 09. 03. 2022 respectively.

d) Identifying and Hiring of Recruitment Agency and award ofcontract to agency oo 04.04.2022.

e) Admit cards for the written tests along with the blank Bio-Dataforms were dispatched on 06.04.2022 to all the 218 candidatessponsored by the District Employment Exchanges - Karimnagar andPedda [pa ]lli.

f) Written test was conducted on 22.04.2022. The filled-in Biodataforms were collected on the day of Written test.

g) The land oustee data of all the candidates who attended theWritten tests was forwarded to RDO, Peddapalli vide letter dated23.O4.2022 for verification and the verification details were receivedon 29.04.2022.

h) List of 25 candidates provisionally selected was displayed on thenotice boards of NTPC-Ramagundam and District EmploymentOffices of Peddapalli and Karimnagar on L2.O5,2022,

i) Provisional offers of appointment were issued to the candidateson 12.05.2022.

j) The joining of the candidates was subject to verification ofcredentials viz. Educational Qualification & Land Oustee status bythe concerned issuing authorities, verification of employment inNTPC or other R&R facilities in lieu of employment to the originalawardee/nom inee,/nominees or any other family member of theawardee and fitness in medical test.

k) After the display of the list of provisionally selected on the NoticeBoards on lZ.O5.2OZ2, the details of the 25 provisionally selectedcandidates were forwarded to the respective issuing authorities forverification of the authenticity of various credentials as mentionedabove. particularly for Land Oustee Status and Education Statusvide letters dated 19-05-2022 and 23-05-2022 respectively.

l) NTPC has also received a complaint with respect to irregularitiesin the Land Oustee status of the [provisionally ]selected [candidates]and the same was forwarded to RDO, Peddapalli [(issuing ]authorityof Land Oustee Certificate) vide letter dated 30.05.2022 forverification from their respective records.

m) In response to the NTPC's letter dated 19.05.2022 forverification of the authenticity of Land Oustee status of theprovisionally se ected candidates, RDO, Peddapally vide letter datedA1.06.2022 has informed that he has called for the originalcertificates from the provisionally selected candidates forverification.

n) As communicated in the provisional offer of appointment, thesubmission of attested copies of relevant documents and theirmatching with originals was completed on 02.06.2022. However,the medical test scheduled after the submission of documents on02.06.2022 was deferred due to non-receipt of verification ofcredentials. The same was communicated to the candidates bydisplaying notice dated 02,06.2022 on the notice boards of NTPC-Ramagundam.

The status of verification of credentials of the 25 candidates as on date is as follows:

a. Verification of land Oustee status of the 25 candidates receivedfrom RDO, Peddapalli is as mentioned below:

i. Vide letter dated 23.06.2022, he has forwarded thedetails of 10 candidates mentioning the details of land oustee statusas'correct'.

ii. Vide letter dated 05.07.2022, he has forwarded thedetails of 08 candidates mentioning that they have produced copiesof Orders of this Hon'ble High Court to include the change innominee and they were verified.

iii. Vide letter dated 18.07.2022 he has forwarded the detailsof 07 candidates mentioning that for 05 candidates certificates wereissued by the then RDO, Peddapalli vide Lr. No. B/2131/2003 dated15.11.2003 and nominee name has been changed without courtcase number bejng mentioned for the said certificates. For the other02 candidates the then RDO has issued the certificates videLt.No.B/4749/93 dated 19.05.1998 and 28.08.1998. Further, RDOhas also stated that the original files of these 07 candidates are nottraced out.

iv. Vide letter dated 08.08.2022 he has informed that thenomination for 01 of the candidates (for whom Land Oustee certificate was issued vide Lr.No.B/4149193 dated 19.05.1998) waschanged through Hon'ble High Court order.

Further, several complaints were received from the Land OusteeWelfare Association alleging that the Land Oustee status of manyof the selected candidates is incorrect/false. In the latest complaintreceived vide letter dated 08.08.2022, they have enclosed theverification reports of RDO (obtained through RTI) and alleged thatthe land oustee status of only 07 candidates is genuine and forother 18 candidates, it is fake. NTPC has utmost respect for theorders of this Court. In fact, this Court had directed the NTPC tocomplete the entlre process of subject recruitment and issueappointment orders within two months from L7.12.2O21. Toensure that the eligible candidates do not lose out an employmentopportunity and to keep the recruitment process within eligiblecandidates only and for it to be in tune with the changed policy ofreservation for economically weaker section and the physicallychallenged (including of disability types), a decision was taken toissue a fresh Notification and cancel the earlier NotificationNo.0L/2017 and no resources were spared to meet the time limitimposed by this Court. In fact, all the petitioners herein havereceived the admit cards for the written test and all thepetitioners, expect Sri E. Vaikuntam, S/o. Sambaiah, participatedin the written test conducted on 22.04.2022 and therefore, it is .x .\

incorrect to contend that they were excluded from the [purview ]ofNotification No.01/2022. The dicta of this Court was [genuinely ]andearnestly understood to mean that the recruitment of 25 Nos. ofJunior Mazdoor in WO category was to be completed within twomonths and all efforts were made to meet the time limit imposedas narrated above. There is no wilful and deliberate non-compliance of the order this Court as contended. While it is truethat the petitions filed for extension of time by NTPC weredismissed on 11.03.2022, all efforts are being made to completethe recruitment [process ]even as on date. Further, respondentNo.1 herein, being the Chairman and Managing director of NTPC, isnot tasked with monitoring the day-to-day administration activitiesof NTPC like recruitment, administrative activities etc. He istasked with taking broad [policy ]decisions in the Company and hedoes not have any direct knowledge/involvement in therecruitment process detailed above. There is no iota of truth insaying that NTPC has been deliberately issuing one Notificationafter other and [playing ]loose with the lives and aspirations of LandOustees. Further, mere delay in implementing the order of thisCourt would not amount to deliberate non-compliance of the order.NTPC has tried its best to ensure that the process of recruitmenthappens in an expeditious manner and within the time imposed by ii this Court. In spite of that, there was delay in implementing thisCourt's Order, dated 17.72.2021 for which NTPC is submitting itsunconditional apology to this Court for failing to complete therecruitment process within the two month's time, as directed bythis Court vide common judgment, dated L7.12.2027 inW.A.No.277 of 2020 and batch.

6. In view of the above rival submissions, the points that arisefor determination in this Contempt Case are as follows:

1. Whether there is any wilful disobedience of the orderdated 17.12.2021 passed by a Division Bench of this Courtin W.A.No.277 of 2020 and batch, by the respondent Nos.7and 2?

2. If so, what would be the punishment? Whether simpleimprisonment for a term which may extend to six months,or fine, or with both?

7. POINT: There is no dispute that the petitioners are the owners of the lands situated at different villages in RamagundamMandal, Karimnagar District and their lands were acquired by theNTPC prior to 1980 and compensation was paid under differentawards. The petitioners were declared as land oustees and LandOustee Identity Cards were issued to them. Based on the IDcards, they enrolled their names in the Employment Exchange,Karimnagar, under the category of Land Oustees. NPTC hasintroduced a scheme to provide employment to the land oustees, apart from granting compensation for the land acquired. All [the]petitioners herein are eligible, qualified and entitled to beconsidered and appointed under the said scheme. While so, anemployment Notification No.02l2015, dated 15.05.2015, wasissued by the NTPC and a request was made to the EmploymentExchange, Karimnagar, to sponsor the names of land oustees ofRamagundam Super Thermal Power Station to fill up 25 posts oflunior Mazdoors in NTPC at Ramagundam. The said notificationwas issued pursuant to a decision taken in the meeting held onL8.07.20L4 and 12.03.2015 with the Minister of Home and Labour,Government of Telangana. Simultaneously, paper notification wasalso issued on 18.05.2015 calling for applications from eligiblecandidates to recruit 25 [posts ]of Junior Mazdoors as a special driverecruitment, wherein only eligible land oustees of RamagundamSTPS were eligible to apply. The Employment Exchange sponsored463 candidates vide letter No.2015/0OtBl0, dated 26.06.2015 andthe NTPC dispatched bio-data to all those candidates on01.10.2015 requesting them to submit details as stipulated in thesaid forms and the petitioners have submitted the same within thestipulated time. After verification of bio-data sheets and NTPCdispatched interview call letters to all the eligible candidates,including the petitioners herein. Accordingly, interviews were held

from 26.L2.2015 to 31.12.2015 and all the petitioners herein haveparticipated in the said interviews. The screening and interviewswere completed and only the declaration of results of the selectedcandidates was left over. While NTPC was about to declare thewere completed and only the declaration of results of the selectedcandidates was left over. While NTPC was about to declare theresults, a person by name Chepyala Aravind Rao, who participatedin the interview, filed W.P.No.26043 of 2016 before this Courtchallenging the process of selection. A learned single Judge of thisCourt, vide order dated 14.12.2016, was [pleased ]to allow theabove said Writ Petition and the recruitment [process ]undertakenby NTPC, pursuant to the employment notification No.2/2015,dated 15.05.2015, was set aside. Challenging that order, one Sriin the interview, filed W.P.No.26043 of 2016 before this Courtchallenging the process of selection. A learned single Judge of thisCourt, vide order dated 14.12.2016, was [pleased ]to allow theabove said Writ Petition and the recruitment [process ]undertakenby NTPC, pursuant to the employment notification No.2/2015,dated 15.05.2015, was set aside. Challenging that order, one SriMarelly Raji Reddy has filed W.A.No.138/2017 before a DivisionBench of this Court and a Division Bench of this Court was [pleased]to allow the said Writ Appeal vide [judgment ]dated 3l.OL.2Ol7 bysetting aside the order of the learned single Judge. However,liberty was granted to NTPC as to whether appointment should beto allow the said Writ Appeal vide [judgment ]dated 3l.OL.2Ol7 bysetting aside the order of the learned single Judge. However,liberty was granted to NTPC as to whether appointment should bemade pursuant to the selection process already undertaken orwhether a fresh selection process should be initiated. Challengingthe fresh notification (No.01/2017), three Writ Petitions were filed,i.e., (1) Marelly Raji Reddy and nine others filed W.P.No.13222 of2Ol7; (2) Regonda Srinivas and others filed W.P.No.t0252 of20lB; and (3) Vanamala Ramana Chary and others filedwhether a fresh selection process should be initiated. Challengingthe fresh notification (No.01/2017), three Writ Petitions were filed,i.e., (1) Marelly Raji Reddy and nine others filed W.P.No.13222 of2Ol7; (2) Regonda Srinivas and others filed W.P.No.t0252 of20lB; and (3) Vanamala Ramana Chary and others filed W.P.No.46897 of 2OlB. This Court [passed ]interim order, dated17 .04.2017 , in the said Writ Petition, suspending the freshemployment NotiFication No.01/2017. However, NTPC has filedvacate stay petition vide I.A.No.1 of 2OL7 and the same wasdismissed by this Court, vide order, dated 2t.O2.2OlB. No appealwas preferred against the dismissal of said vacate stay [petition.]Subsequently, the aforementioned W.P.No.13222 of 20t7 ,W.P.No.10252 of 2078 and W.P.No.46B97 of 2018 were allowed bythis Court, vide order, dated 17.07.2020, and the EmploymentNotification No.01/2017, dated 09.03.20L7, was quashed.Aggrieved by the same, NTPC filed three Writ Appeals videW.A.No.270 of 2020, W.A.No.277 of 2020 and W.A.No.2B6 of2020. A Division Bench of this Court, vide order, dated14.09.2020, was pleased to suspend the said order, holding asfollows:

"The operation of the Order, dated 17,07,2020, is hereby, stayed.It is also made clear that any selection under the impugnednotification, shall be subject to the decision of this Court."It is also made clear that any selection under the impugnednotification, shall be subject to the decision of this Court."

In spite oF the same, recruitment process was not completed bythe NTPC. Finally, a Division Bench of this Court, vide commonjudgment, dated 17.L2.2021, was pleased to allow all the threeWrit Appeals by setting aside the order, dated 17.07.2020, passed ./l by a learned single Judge of this Court. The operative portion ofthe common [judgment ]dated 17.12.2021 reads as follows:

"The reasons for cancelling the earlier advertisement dated15.05.2015 are cogent and valid reasons and as the NTPC is now,adopting a transparent process, the impugned order [passed ]by thelearned Single Judge is set aside. The NTPC is directed to concludethe entire [process ]of subject recruitment within a [period ]of twomonths from today and issue consequential appointment orders.

With the aforesaid, the writ appeals stand allowed, Themiscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.There shall be no order as to costs."

In view of the aforesaid [judgment, ]NTPC was required to completethe entire process of recruitment within a period of two monthsfrom the date of the [judgment. ]A copy of the [judgment ]dated17.t2.2021 was made available on the website of this Court on22.12.2021. In view of the [judgment ]dated L7.t2.2027 passed bya Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.277 of 2020 and batch,NTPC ought to have completed the entire subject recruitmentwithin a period of two months from the date of judgment. NTPCdid not complete the [process ]of recruitment within the timestipulated. Instead of completing the recruitment process asdirected by this Court, NTPC violated the orders of this Court byissuing another Fresh Notification No.1/2022, dated 01.02.2022and cancelled the recruitment [process ]initiated vide EmploymentNotification No.01/2017, dated 09.03.2017. The respondent Nos.1and 2 did not obtain any order from the Hon'ble the Division Bench or sought any clarification to say [goodbye ]to the [Notification]No.O1/2017 dated 09.03.2017. The respondent No.2 [has]deliberately violated the orders of this Court by [withdrawing ][the]subject Employment Notification No.01/2017. The [respondents]submitted that a complaint vide letter dated 08.08.2022 wasreceived alleging that the land oustee status of only 07 candidateswas genuine and for other 18 candidates, was fake and basing onthe verification reports from the respective issuing authorities andtaking into consideration other reasons assigned in theaforementioned [paragraphs, ]had issued another fresh NotificationNo.0l/2O22. It is [pertinent ]to state that the NTPC filed applicationsin three Writ Appeals referred above for extension of time byanother two months and for completing the recruitment by30.04.2022 and this Court vide order dated L1.03.2022 dismissedthose petitions observing that the subject matter oF recruitmentrelates to Land Oustees and the land was acquired in the year1996 and still the NTPC is praying for extension of time. TheHon'ble Division Bench of this Court did not find any reason togrant any further extension in the matter. The reason assigned bythe respondents is that to ensure that the eligible candidates donot lose out an employment opportunity and to keep therecruitment process within eligible candidates only and for it to be

in tune with the changed policy of reservation for economicallyweaker section and the physically challenged (including ofdisability types), a decision was taken to issue a fresh Notificationand cancel the earlier Notification No.OL/2017 and no resourceswere spared to meet the time limit imposed by this Court. It is alsosubmltted on behalf of the respondents that all the petitionersherein have received the admit cards for the written test and allthe petitioners, expect Sri E,Vaikuntam, S/o, Sambaiah,participated in the written test conducted on 22.04.2022 andtherefore, it is incorrect to contend that they were excluded fromthe purview of Notification No.0t/2022. The dicta of this Court wasgenuinely and earnestly understood to mean that the recruitmentof 25 candidates to the post of lunior Mazdoor in WO category wasto be completed within two months and all efforts were made tomeet the time limit imposed. There is no wilful and deliberate non-compliance oF the order this Court.

8. Here, it is relevant to state that the whole dispute is inrelation to issuance of employment notification Nos.2/2015 dated15.05.2015 and Ol/2017 dated 09.03.2017 and recruitment of 25candidates to the post of Junior Mazdoor in NTPC Ramagundam.Vide common judgment dated 17.L2.2021 [passed ]in W.A.No.277of 202 and batch, a Division Bench of this Court upheld the cancellation oF recruitment notification No.0212015 dated15.05.2015 holding that the reasons for cancelling the earlieradvertisement dated 15.05.2015 are cogent and valid and as [NTPC]is adoptinq a transparent [process, ]so the order dated L7.07.2020passed by the learned Single Judge was set aside. The NTPC wasdirected to conclude the entire [process ]of subject recruitmentNo.01/2017 within two months from the date of [judgment ]dated17.t2.2021. As [per ]the said [judgment, ]the respondents ought tohave completed the process of recruitment following theNotification No.01/2017 dated 09.03.2017 within a [period ]of twomonths from the date of [judgment ]and issued consequentialappointment orders. When the whole [judgment ]dated 17.12.2021passed in W.A.No.277 of 2O2O and Batch is read, it can be safelyconcluded that the Notification No.01/2017 was issued adopting atransparent [process. ]so the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Courtallowed the NTPC to complete the process of recruitment withintwo(2) months from the date of the judgment dated t7.L2.2O2tby following the Notification No.01/2017. Neither the respondentstherein sought permission oF this Court to issue anothernotification afresh nor sought any clarification before issuing freshNotification No.O7/2O22. They sought only extension of time andthose applications were dismissed by this Court vide order dated

LL.03.2022. So the contentions raised by the respondents that thejudgment dated 17.12.2021 passed in W.A.No.277 of 2020 andbatch refers to completion of recruitment process within twomonths from the date of judgment is unsustainable. Therespondent No.1 being Chairman and Managing Director of NTPCand respondent No.2 being General Manager (HR), NTPC, are thekey persons in issuing the Notification No.01/2022 and sayinggoodbye to the judgment dated L7.12.202t passed by a DivisionBench of this Court in W.A.No.277 of 2020 and Batch. So thecontentions raised on behalf of the respondents that respondentNo,1 is not tasked with monitoring the day-to-day administrationactivities of NTPC like recruitment, administrative activities etc, isunsustainable. Both the respondents cannot be absolved fromcarrying on the recruitment process as ordered by this Court videjudgment dated t7.12.2021. There is deliberate and wilful laches,omissions and commissions on the [part ]of the respondents inspiteof being fully aware of the imptication of the [judgment ]dated17.12.2021 passed in W.A.No.277 of 2020 and batch. Affording anopportunity to the petitioners to appear for the writtenexamination pursuant to the Notification No.01/2022 would notamount to compliance of [judgment ]dated 17.72.2021 [passed ]by aDivision Bench of this Court. The question is, whether there is any b..,- '/

wilful disobedience of the order in [question ]or not. Having filedapplications in three Writ Appeals seeking extension of time andhaving suffered an order against them on 17.03.2022, therespondents issued fresh notification No.0U2022, which clearlydemonstrates and reflects that respondent No.1 being Chairmanand Managing Director of NTPC and respondent No.2 being GeneralManager (HR), NTPC, have scant respect to the law and order ofthis Court. They have not made any required efforts to comply theorders of this Court passed by a Division Bench of this Court inW.A.No.277 of 2020 and Batch, on 17.L2.2021. Instead ofcompleting the recruitment process as directed by this Court,respondent Nos.1 and 2 violated the orders ofthis Court by issuinganother Fresh Notification No.1/2022, dated 01.02.2022, andcancelled the recruitment process initiated vide EmploymentNotification No.0l/20t7, dated 09.03.2017. It is also pertinent tostate that there is some dispute in relation to antecedents/certificates etc, filed by 18 candidates out of the 25 candidatesprovisionally selected for the post of 25 Nos. of lunior Mazdoors.As per the list furnished by the Employment Exchange, 463candidates were sponsored by the Employment Exchange. Ifineligible candidates are deleted from the selection process, thereare so many other eligible candidates to complete the process of recruitment. So the manner in which the fresh NotificationNo.07/2022 is issued demonstrates a deliberate and wilfuldisobedience of the order of this Court dated 17.12.2021 passed inW.A.No.277 of 2020 and Batch. It clearly establishes that therespondent Nos.1 and 2 have scant respect to the [judgment ]of thisCourt and they have deliberately and wllfully disobeyed the ordersof this Court.

9. In view of these circumstances, it is also appropriate to statethat Article 215 of the Constitution of India envisages that everyHigh Court shall be a Court of record and shall have all the powersof such a Court including the power to punish for contempt oFitself. Contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature, and lawof contempt has to be strictly interpreted. Where there is [patent]wilful and deliberate non-compliance of the order passed by theCourt, the law does not require that this Court should sit back withfolded hands and fail to take any action in the matter. In KapildeoPrasad Sah and others Vs. State of Bihar and othersl, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:

"...for holding a person to have committed contempt, ltmust be shown that there was wilful disobedience of themust be shown that there was wilful disobedience of thejudgment or order of the Court. But it was indicated thateven negligence and carelessness may anrountto contempt. It was further observed that issu_ance ofeven negligence and carelessness may anrountto contempt. It was further observed that issu_ance of "-' [(tsgz) ][z ][scc ][569 ][* ]

notice for contempt of Court and [power ]to [punish ]arehaving far reaching consequences, and as such, theyshould be resorted to only when a clear case of wilfuldisobedience of the court's order is made out. A [petitioner]who complains breach of Court's order must allegedeliberate or contumacious disobedience of the Court'sorder and if such allegation is proved, contempt can besaid to have been made out, not otherwise. Power topunish for contempt is intended to maintain effective legalsystem. it is exercised to prevent perversion of the courseof [justice. ]"

In the instant case, as indicated above, the respondent Nos.1 and2 have deliberately and wilfully disobeyed the orders of this Courtand not completed the [process ]of recruitment within the timestipulated. There ls substance in the submissions made on behalfof the [petitioners.]

10. In view of the circumstances of the case, though anunconditional apology is tendered by the respondent Nos.1 and 2,the manner in which they deliberately and wllfully disobeyed theorders of this Court, they deserve no leniency and this Court isdeclined to accept such unconditional apology.

11. For the reasons mentioned above, we hold that respondentNos.1 and 2 have deliberately and willfully disobeyed the orders ofthis Court [passed ]by a Hon'ble Divlsion Bench of this Court inW.A.No.277 of 2020 and batch, on L7.t2.2021 and they are liableto be punished for the same.

L2. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is allowed. The respondentNos.1 and 2 are sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for aperiod oF two (02) months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (RupeesTwo Thousand only) each, within four (04) weeks from today. Thepetitioners are directed to deposit subsistence allowance @Rs.500/- per day within four (04) weeks. The sentence ofimprisonment imposed on the respondent Nos.1 and 2 issuspended for a period of six (06) weeks from today.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, in thiscontempt case, shall stand closed.

Sd/. M. MANJULA,DEPUTY REGISTRAR&//TRUE COPY//SECTION [OFFICER]

To,

1. Mr Gurudeep [Singh' ][Chairman and Managing ][Director' ][NTPC ][Limited' ][(A]Govt of lndra f [nt"rpr,r"r ][j.'iilgJ ][Off';". ][fl.fi_i ][e^navan, ][Scope Complex, ][7]i;t'iriid;;iH"J, [r-ooi ][noao, ][Nlew ][Delhi 110003]Govt of lndra f [nt"rpr,r"r ][j.'iilgJ ][Off';". ][fl.fi_i ][e^navan, ][Scope Complex, ][7]i;t'iriid;;iH"J, [r-ooi ][noao, ][Nlew ][Delhi 110003]

2. Mr Manikanth, [General Manager ][(HR)' ][NTPC-Limited' Southern Region ][Head]' 6;;,1H: Gr'aoigrdj Secun"derabad 5000803. One CC to [SRl. ][K ][LAKSHMI ][NARASIN/IHA ][Advocate [OPUC]]' 6;;,1H: Gr'aoigrdj Secun"derabad 5000803. One CC to [SRl. ][K ][LAKSHMI ][NARASIN/IHA ][Advocate [OPUC]]

4. One CC [to ][Ms. G. ][SUDHA, ][Advocate ][[OPUC]]

5. Two GD [CoPies]

{

HIGH COURT

DRSAJ & NTRJ

DATED:30/1212022

ORDER

CC.No.776 of 2022

ALLOWING TIIE CONTEMPT CASE

k

t.([o+][ "?t]E ][s r,q][ )5-]\f.t'oU3 0 DEI 2022t,Dr^* [...]