Multiple NDPS Cases Without Conviction Cannot Justify Indefinite Pre-Trial Custody: Himachal Pradesh HC Grants Bail in Heroin Case Departmental Findings Based On Witnesses Discredited By Criminal Court Constitute 'No Evidence': Orissa High Court Upheld Constable's Reinstatement When Pension Rules Are Capable of More Than One Interpretation, Courts Must Lean in Favour of the Employee: MP High Court Wife Left Voluntarily — But Minor Children Cannot Be Taken Away: Madras High Court Intervenes in Habeas Corpus for Two Toddlers Where Consideration Does Not Pass in Terms of the Sale Deed, the Sale Deed Is Null and Void, a Nullity and Dead Letter in the Eyes of Law: Jharkhand High Court National Award-Winning Director's Script Was Registered Two Years Before Complainant Even Wrote His — Supreme Court Quashes Copyright Infringement Case Against 'Kahaani-2' Director IBC Clean Slate Does Not Wipe Out Right of Set-Off as Defence: Supreme Court Draws Critical Distinction Between Counterclaim and Defensive Plea GST Assessment Challenged on Natural Justice Grounds Tagged to Criminal Writ in Supreme Court Railway Cannot Escape Compensation by Crying 'Trespass' Without Eyewitness: Bombay High Court Reverses Tribunal, Awards Rs. 4 Lakh to Widow of Rolex Employee Master Plan Cannot Be Held Hostage to Subsequent Vegetation Growth — Supreme Court Settles Deemed Forest vs. Statutory Planning Conflict Contempt | Sold Property Despite Court's Restraint Order: Andhra Pradesh High Court Sentences One Month's Imprisonment Tractor-Run-Over Death Was An Accident, Not Murder: Allahabad High Court Acquits Three Accused Fast-Tracking Cannot Bury Justice: Supreme Court Sets Aside 21-Year-Delayed Appeal Decided Without Informing Convict Panchayat Act's Demolition Powers Cease Once Plot Falls Under Development Authority's Planning Area: Calcutta High Court Actual Date Of Woman Director's Appointment A Triable Issue; Prosecution Can't Be Quashed Merely On Claims Of Compliance: Calcutta High Court A Website Cannot Whisper and Then Punish: Delhi High Court Reins in DSSSB Over E-Dossier Rejections Mutual Consent Alone Ends the Marriage: Gujarat High Court Affirms Mubarat Divorce Without Formalities State Cannot Hide Behind "Oral Consent" or Delay When It Builds Roads Through Citizens' Land Without Due Process: Himachal Pradesh HC Show Cause Notice Alone Cannot Cut a Retired Engineer's Pension: Jharkhand High Court Bovine Smuggling Is a Law and Order Problem, Not a Public Order Threat: J&K High Court Quashes PSA Detention Article 22(2) Constitution | Production Beyond 24 Hours Not Fatal If Delay Explained And Travel Time Excluded: Karnataka High Court Article 227 Is Not an Appellate Power: High Court Refuses to Reassess Tribunal Findings on Pension Claim: Kerala High Court High Court Cannot Call A Complaint "False And Malicious" Without First Finding It Discloses No Cognizable Offence: Supreme Court When Jurisdiction Fails, Remand Cannot Cure It: Supreme Court Sets Aside Order Sending MSME Award Dispute Back to Functus Officio Facilitation Council Selling Inferior Pipes as 'Jain' or 'Jindal Gold' Brand Is Not Just a Civil Wrong — It's Cheating: MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Went to Collect Chit Fund Money, Got Arrested in Prostitution Raid: Telangana High Court Grants Bail to Woman Accused of Being Sub-Organiser Axe Blow During Sudden Quarrel Falls Under Exception 4 To Section 300 IPC, Not Murder: Orissa High Court Modifies Conviction To Culpable Homicide

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