Telangana High Court
CC/1639/2011 of Smt. Vadluri Leelavathi , Neelavathi, Vs Smt. Smitha Sabarwal, on 29 December 2011
SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CONTEMPT CASE No.1639 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner responded to a notification issued way back in the year 2007 inviting applications for selection of candidates for the post of Anganwadi Workers for Kandlapalli Village, Sarangapur Mandal, Karimnagar District.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Conclusion
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDYCONTEMPT CASE No.1639 of 2011
ORDER:
The petitioner responded to a notification issued way backin the year 2007 inviting applications for selection of candidates forthe post of Anganwadi Workers for Kandlapalli Village, SarangapurMandal, Karimnagar District. T.Srilatha was placed at SerialNo.1 and the petitioner at Serial No.2 in the selection list. It isstated that on a complaint submitted by the petitioner, theappointment of Srilatha was set aside. Complaining that she is notbeing appointed in the resultant vacancy, the petitioner filedW.P.No.18437 of 2011. The writ petition was disposed of on17.08.2011, directing that in case the petitioner is placed at SerialNo.2, her case shall be considered for appointment against thevacancy.
This contempt case is filed alleging that the respondents didnot comply with the directions issued by this Court. A counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents. Itis admitted that the appointment of T.Srilatha was set aside on acomplaint made by the petitioner. It is, however, stated thatSrilatha filed W.P.No.16058 of 2011 challenging the proceedings,dated 09.06.2011, and that the writ petition was allowed on22.06.2011. It is stated that C.C.No.1472 of 2011 was filedalleging that the orders passed in W.P.No.16058 of 2011 were notimplemented and that Srilatha has since been reinstated.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learnedcounsel for the respondents.
The very basis for the relief granted in favour of thepetitioner was that the appointment of candidate at Serial No.1 i.e.
Srilatha was set aside and that the post is vacant. The factsmentioned above disclose that though the appointment ofcandidate at Serial No.1 was set aside, this Court allowedW.P.No.16058 of 2011 filed by her and as a result of the stepstaken by her, she has since been reinstated.
In view of this development, the petitioner cannot beconsidered for appointment. In case the petitioner wants, she hasto pursue the remedies vis-à-vis the appointment of candidate atSerial No.1.
The contempt case is accordingly closed. There shall beno order as to costs.
_____________________
L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J
Dt:29.12.2011.
kdl