JUDGMENT
S.R. Nayak, J.
1. The Government of Andhra Pradesh and the Chairman, State Level Police Recruitment Board have preferred this Writ Petition being aggrieved by the order dated 13-9-2002 in C.A.No. 603 of 2002 in O.A.No. 2492 of 2001 on the file of Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (for short Tribunal).
2. The above Contempt Application was filed by the respondent herein complaining that the direction issued by the learned Tribunal dated 7-6-2002 in O.A.No. 2492 of 2001 was not complied with. During the pendency of the Contempt Application, as per the direction of the learned Tribunal dated 7-6-2002, the petitioner’s claim was considered for appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police against the quota available to non-locals and the same was rejected by proceedings of Respondent-2 dated 5-7-2002. However, the learned Tribunal having noticed that one Sri K. Venkat Rao who belongs to BC (B) category who had secured only 152.67 marks as against 158.17 marks obtained by the applicant was appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police (Civil), Visakhapatnam Range in B.C.(B) vacancy, took exception to non-selection of the petitioner and by the impugned order directed the petitioners herein to issue appointment orders to the applicant/respondent and to send him for training forthwith and further directed that if the petitioners herein did not comply with the direction on or before 30-9-2002, the petitioner should appear in person before the learned Tribunal to explain as to why further action should not be taken against them under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act. Hence, this Writ Petition by the State Government and the Chairman, State Level Police Recruitment Board. This court issued rule nisi on 27-2-2002 and suspended the impugned order of the learned Tribunal.
3. We have heard the learned Additional Advocate General Sri Prakash Reddy and Sri Suresh Reddy, learned advocate for the applicant/respondent.
4. Learned Additional Advocate General contended that by passing the impugned order directing the petitioners herein to issue appointment orders to the applicant, the learned Tribunal granted a relief which was not granted by the Tribunal in the main order. In other words, the learned Additional Advocate General would maintain that the learned Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction in issuing such a direction. Alternatively, the learned Additional Advocate General contended that since the direction of the Tribunal has been complied with by Respondent-2 on 5-7-2002, there was no scope for initiating contempt proceeding against the petitioners and if the rejection of the claim of the petitioners is illegal or irregular for any reason whatsoever, the applicant has to work out his legal remedies by instituting a separate application before the Tribunal.
5. On the other hand, Sri Suresh Reddy, learned counsel for the applicant/ respondent drawing our attention to what is stated in para 5 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent-1 in C.A.No. 603 of 2002 and having regard to what is stated in the letter dated 21-8-2002 of Chairman, State Level Police Recruitment Board and having regard to the fact that Mr. K. Venkat Rao who belongs to BC (B) category was appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police in Visakhapatnam Range, the petitioner is also entitled to be considered and appointed to the said post inasmuch as he has secured 158.17, whereas the said Mr. K.Venkat Rao has secured only 152.67.
6. We have perused the proceedings of Respondent-2 dated 5-7-2002. In the said proceedings, it is clearly stated that as per the direction of the learned Tribunal, the petitioner’s case is considered as non-local in Zones other than Eluru Range and he did not figure either in O.C. or B.C(B) category in the 1994 selection list. The correctness of this statement is not seriously contested by the applicant/respondent. Therefore, simply because Sri K. Venkat Rao was appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police (Civil) Visakhapatnam range illegally or irregularly, that circumstance itself would not justify that the applicant/respondent should also be appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police regardless of the fact whether he has come up to the level of selection, in terms of merit, taking the whole State as a single zone. Be that as it may, the validity of the rejection order dated 5-7-2002 could not have been gone into by the learned Tribunal in the Contempt Application filed by the petitioner therein, wherein he only complained disobedience of the order dated 7-6-2002 made in O.A.2492 of 2001. It is not that the court should initiate contempt proceedings in each and every case of infraction of the court’s order. In order to initiate the contempt proceedings against a person, the court should be satisfied that the alleged contemnor has deliberately and wantonly disobeyed an order of the Court. That is not the situation in the present case. In conclusion, we cannot sustain the impugned order of the learned Tribunal.
7. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and direction issued by the learned Tribunal to the petitioners herein to issue appointment orders as Sub-Inspector of Police (Civil) and to send him for training is set aside. We also set aside the further direction to the petitioners herein to appear before the Tribunal to explain their conduct as to why they have not issued appointment orders to the applicant/respondent herein. No costs.