Andhra Pradesh High Court
CC/2375/2026 of Balorda Laxman Rao Vs Sri. M. Mallikarjuna Nayak, IAS on 8 October 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] FRIDAY, THE 9th DAY OF OCTOBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CONTEMPT CASE NO: 2375/2026 Between: 1. BALORDA LAXMAN RAO, S/O. BALANNA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC CRT ENGLISH S.A., IN G.T.W.A. SCHOOL
APHC010339732026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE 9th DAY OF OCTOBER 2026
PRESENT
Between:
1. BALORDA LAXMAN RAO, S/O. BALANNA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC CRT ENGLISH S.A., IN G.T.W.A. SCHOOL (G) PANASAPUT, MANCHINGIPUT
MANDAL,
VISAKHAPATNAM
DISTRICT,
PRESENTLY ASR DISTRICT, A.P.
2. KUM. GAMPARAI ESTHER RANI, D/O. RAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 30
YEARS, OCC CRT BIOLOGY (NS) S.A., IN G.T.W A SCHOOL (G)
PANASAPUT,
MUNCHINGIPUT
MANDAL,
VISAKHAPATNAM
DISTRICT, PRESENTLY ASR DISTRICT, A.P.
3. PANGI CHIRANJEEVI, S/O. APPALA KONDA, AGED ABOUT 39
YEARS, OCC CRT BIOLOGY (NS) S.A., IN G.T.W.A. SCHOOL (B) U.
CHEEDIPALEM, KOYYURU MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT, PRESENTLY ASR DISTRICT, A.P.
4. SRI. KUNTHURU LAXMI NARASIMHA RAJU, S/O. MATYA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCC CRT ENGLISH S.A., IN G.T.W.A
SCHOOL
(B)
U.
KOYYURU
MANDAL,
VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT, PRESENTLY ASR DISTRICT, A.P.
5. KILLO KUSUMALAMMA, D/O. MATYA RAO, AGED ABOUT 32
YEARS, OCC CRT SOCIAL STUDIES S.A., IN G.T.W.A. SCHOOL (G)
KILAGADA,
MUNCHANGIPUTTU
MANDAL,
NADIMPALEM,
KOYYURU MANDAL VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT, PRESENTLY
ASR DISTRICT, A.P.
6. KUDELI VIJAYA LAKSHMI, D/O. LAXMAYYA, AGED ABOUT 31
YEARS, OCC CRT SOCIAL STUDIES S.A., IN G.T.W A SCHOOL (G)
PEDAGARUVU,
HUKUMPETA
MANDAL
U.
KOYYURU MANDAL VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT, PRESENTLY
ASR DISTRICT, A.P.
7. SRI. JANTHA RAMA RAO, S/O. S/O. CHITTI BABU, AGED ABOUT 30
YEARS, OCC CRT HINDI S.A., IN G.T.W.A. SCHOOL (B) KOYYURU, U.
CHEEDIPALEM,
KOYYURU
MANDAL,
VISAKHAPATNAM
DISTRICT, PRESENTLY ASR DISTRICT, A.P.
8. SRI. GONDI SOMAIAH, S/O. VEMASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 41
YEARS,
OCC
CRT
S.A.
(SOCIAL),
IN
G.T.W.A.
SCHOOL,
RAMANNAPALEM
VILLAGE,
KOYYURU
MANDAL,
VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT, PRESENTLY ASR DISTRICT, A.P.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. SRI M MALLIKARJUNA NAYAK IAS, PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, TRIBAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI AT AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P.
2. SRI M MALLIKARJUNA NAYAK IAS, THE COMMISSIONER OF
TRIBAL WELFARE, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, NEAR
KHANDARI HOTEL, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT, A.P.
3. SMT TIRUMANI SRI PUJA IAS, PROJECT OFFICER, INTEGRATED
TRIBAL
DEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
(ITDA),
PADERU,
...CONTEMNOR(S):
Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act 1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit file herein the High Court may be pleased to pleased to take Cognizance of the contempt committed by the Contemnors/Respondents herein and punish them U/Sec. 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971, r/w 215 of the Constitution of India for utter disobedience and disregard shown to the Interim Order, on 01.05.2019, in lA
No. 1 of 2019 in W.P. No. 6329 of 2019, by this Honble High Court, and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. M KISHORE BABU
Counsel for the Contemnor(S):
1. .
2. KIRTHI TEJA KONDAVEETI
The Court made the following:
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.
ORDER:
This contempt case is filed against the respondents for willful disobedience of the interim order dated 01.05.2019 passed by this Court in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in W.P.No.6329 of 2019. The operative portion of the said order is extracted hereunder:
“…Having regard to the above said order, there shall be interim direction to respondents herein to continue the petitioners in service and pay minimum scale of pay attached to the posts in which they are employed, pending further orders..”
2. Respondent No. 3 has filed a counter-affidavit stating that, pursuant to the orders passed by this Court and in terms of Act 30 of 2023, the services of 209 Contract Residential Teachers (CRTs) working in Tribal Welfare Schools, who were in service as on the date of commencement of the Act, i.e., 02.06.2014, who were continued in service without any break, were regularized upon fulfillment of the conditions prescribed under the said Act. The said 209 CRTs included 19 petitioners in W.P. No. 6329 of 2019. Of the remaining 14 petitioners, one was recruited in the GSWS Department and another was selected as a Government Teacher. The remaining 12 petitioners continued to work as CRTs from 2019 until the declaration of the results of Mega DSC-2025, in compliance with the interim orders passed by this Court.
(a) It is further stated that, upon completion of DSC-2025 and the appointment of 851 regular teachers, a decision was taken, on humanitarian grounds and in consideration of the services rendered by the existing CRTs, to protect the services of the affected CRTs. Accordingly, guidelines were issued for the adjustment of the existing CRTs against available vacancies, in view of the appointment of direct recruits through DSC-2025. Except for petitioner No. 1 herein, all the petitioners in the present Contempt Case appeared for DSC-2025. However, they were not selected, as they did not find a place in the merit list.
(b) It is also stated that, as no vacancies were available in the School Assistant (SA) cadre and vacancies were available in the Secondary Grade Teacher (SGT) cadre, the respondents, taking into consideration the status, representations and services of the affected CRTs and in compliance with the interim orders passed by this Court, decided to continue their services instead of terminating them in accordance with the original terms of their agreements with the Department. Accordingly, the affected CRTs, including petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 in the present Contempt Case, who had been working in the SA cadre, were considered for adjustment against available vacancies in the SGT cadre, with their consent.
3. Respondent No.1 has also filed a counter-affidavit on similar lines, stating that, although the petitioners could not succeed in DSC-2025, their services were being continued. It is further stated that petitioner Nos.2 and 3, who had been working in the SA cadre, were considered for adjustment against available vacancies in the SGT cadre, with their consent.
4. From the counter-affidavits, it is clear that petitioner No.1 did not appear in the DSC, 2025 and whereas the case of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 was considered for adjustment against available vacancies in the SGT cadre, with their consent.
5. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the orders passed by this Court on 01.05.2019 have been complied with by the respondents, but however, as the main writ petition is still pending adjudication, this Contempt Case is closed granting liberty to the petitioners to agitate their grievance, if any, in the pending main writ petition. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this case shall stand closed.
_________________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
Date: 09.10.2026 KA
Date: 09.10.2026 KA