Without Partition By Metes And Bounds, Co-Sharer Cannot Seek Recovery Of Possession: Supreme Court Clarifies Limits Of Order VII Rule 7 CPC Supreme Court Holds Plaintiff Entitled To Declaration Of Title Over Undivided Half Share Despite Claiming Entire Property Under Gift Deed Supreme Court Reaffirms Legality Of Remainder Of Natural Life Sentences Without Remission, Dismisses Batch Of Writ Petitions 'State Cannot Take Advantage Of Its Own Wrong': Supreme Court Holds Promotees Entitled To Count Ad Hoc Service For Seniority If Within Quota 'Elevators Are Common Carriers, Entail Heightened Duty of Care': Supreme Court Upholds NCDRC Order Holding OTIS Principally Liable For Death Due To Malfunctioning Lift Supreme Court Dismisses Compensation Claim Under Motor Vehicles Act, Holds Reach Stacker Operating in Custom-Bonded ICD Area Is Not a "Motor Vehicle" Missing ACRs Due To Illegal Termination Cannot Block Higher Judicial Pay Scales: Supreme Court Grants Relief To Rajasthan Judicial Officer Subsequent Suit Generally Transferable To Court Where Earlier Suit On Same Subject Matter Is Pending: Allahabad High Court Successive Anticipatory Bail Maintainable Under BNSS If Fact Situation Changes Or Previous Findings Become Obsolete: Andhra Pradesh High Court Tenant's "Deemed Purchaser" Right Defeated By Retrospective Notification Under Section 88(1)(b) Of Tenancy Act: Bombay High Court Buyer Not Entitled To Refund Of Earnest Money Once Sale Deed Is Duly Executed Under The Agreement: Calcutta High Court Contradictory Pleas Vitiate Defence; Drawer Liable Even If Signed Blank Cheque Was Handed Over: Delhi High Court Working Mother's Relocation To Another City Not A Ground To Completely Deny Overnight Custody To Father: Karnataka High Court Civil Courts Barred From Granting Injunctions Against SARFAESI Actions Even If Partition Suit Is Maintainable: Kerala High Court S.147 NI Act Is A Special Law, Overrides S.320 CrPC; Offence Can Be Compounded At Any Stage Even After Dismissal Of Appeal: Madras High Court Appellate Court Can Allow Additional Evidence To Ensure Fair Adjudication Even If Not Produced In Trial: Madhya Pradesh High Court Police Can Freeze Bank Accounts Under Section 106 BNSS Upon Suspicion Of 'Proceeds Of Crime': Punjab & Haryana High Court

Andhra Pradesh High Court Fines APSRTC Official for Non-compliance in Apprentice Recruitment Case

07 October 2024 7:10 PM

By: sayum


Court’s Orders on Awarding Marks Must be Followed Strictly: Failure to Comply Will Invite Punishment. Andhra Pradesh High Court in C.S. Mahesh Babu & Others v. Sri M.T. Krishna Babu & Others (Contempt Case No. 1141 of 2020) ruled that the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) had willfully violated the Court’s order regarding awarding marks for recruitment. The Court imposed a fine on the second respondent, the Regional Manager of APSRTC, for failing to comply with the earlier directions.

The case involved petitioners who had completed apprenticeships with APSRTC and applied for posts of Shramik under a 2010 recruitment notification. The recruitment process gave weightage to candidates with a National Apprenticeship Certificate, but the petitioners had only a National Trade Certificate. When their applications were rejected, the petitioners approached the High Court in 2012, which directed APSRTC to award marks based on their National Trade Certificates. APSRTC did not comply with this order, leading the petitioners to file contempt cases in 2020.

The core issue was whether APSRTC had violated the Court’s order by not awarding marks to the petitioners based on their National Trade Certificates.

APSRTC contended that the National Apprenticeship Certificate, not the National Trade Certificate, was required for awarding marks. They also argued that even if 30 marks were awarded, the petitioners would not reach the cutoff for appointment. Furthermore, all vacancies had already been filled, and reopening the process would be impossible.

However, the High Court rejected these arguments, stating that its previous order was clear: marks had to be awarded based on the National Trade Certificates, and APSRTC could not arbitrarily deny them. The Court also criticized APSRTC’s claim that awarding 30 marks would not suffice, calling it “specious reasoning,” as the maximum possible score remained 100.

Justice R. Raghunandan Rao ruled that APSRTC’s failure to comply with the Court’s previous order amounted to contempt. While noting that the second respondent had recently undergone medical treatment, the Court imposed a fine of ₹2,000, with the condition that failure to pay would result in two weeks of simple imprisonment.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court held APSRTC in contempt for non-compliance with its earlier order on apprentice recruitment and fined the responsible official. The judgment reaffirmed the Court’s authority in ensuring that its orders are followed without arbitrary reinterpretation by the parties involved.

Date of Decision: October 4, 2024

C.S. Mahesh Babu & Others v. Sri M.T. Krishna Babu & Others

Latest Legal News