1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 314 OF 2007 Shaikh Habib Ahemad Shaikh Siraj Ahemad ....Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra & others ....Respondents. Shri. Ajay Deshpande, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri. K.S. Patil, A.G.P. for respondent No. 1. Shri. Mukul Kulkarni, Advocate for respondent No. 2. Shri. P.M.Shah, Senior Counsel for the respondent No. 3. CORAM : R.K. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 17th November, 2009 ORAL ORDER : 1. This petition for contempt complains about the communication dated 19.10.2007, issued by the Maharashtra Public Service Commission, Mumbai, rejecting the application of the petitioner, on the ground of over age, being contrary and in breach of the order dated 7.9.2006 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 6130/2006. 2 2. The petitioner had filed Writ Petition No. 6130/2006, claiming reliefs as under :- "(a) The Writ Petition may kindly be allowed. (b) The impugned order of termination dated 17.8.2006 at Exh. "D" issued by R-2 and the decision rendered by the Administrative Tribunal on 28.8.2006 at Exh. "H" may kindly be quashed and set aside, by directing R-2 to continue the petitioner in- service as before, till the regularly appointed Assistant Public Prosecutor is appointed in his place. (c) Pending hearing and final disposal of this petition, the respondent No. 2 may kindly be directed to allow the petitioner to perform his duties as Assistant Public Prosecutor, and not to create any hindrance in performance of his duties as Assistant Public Prosecutor, Kannad, as above. (d) Pending hearing and final disposal of this petition, the respondent No. 2 may kindly be directed to issue experience certificate to the petitioner to have worked as Assistant Public Prosecutor from 15.7.2000 till date, so as to enable the petitioner to avail the benefit as an in-service candidate, and to forward the application form of the petitioner to M.P.S.C., in pursuance of the advertisement Notification dated 27.7.2006 at Exh. "B". (e) Any other suitable and equitable relief to which the petitioner is found entitled to, may kindly be granted in his favour." On 7.9.2006 this Court passed an order as under :- "Heard respective counsels. S.O. for two weeks to enable learned A.G.P. to file reply. Interim relief in terms of prayer clause (D). Respondent No. 3 - M.P.S.C. to accept application of 3 petitioner, if received through proper channel even after the deadline." 3. The petitioner submitted his application to the respondent Maharashtra Public Service Commission, accompanied by the certificate of experience issued to him by the competent authority as was claimed in prayer clause "D" reproduced above for the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor. This certificate was submitted in order to enable him to avail the benefit as an in-service candidate, meaning thereby that the age limit prescribed of 33 years in clause (3) of the advertisement, shall not be applicable to him. The Maharashtra Public Service Commission considered the application of the petitioner and rejected it, on the ground that the petitioner is over aged. This was communicated to the petitioner by letter dated 19.10.2007 at Exh. C to the petition. The petitioner, thereafter, immediately made two successive representations dated 13.11.2007 and 16.11.2007 which are at pages 15 and 22, respectively and the petition, bringing to the notice of the Maharashtra Public Service Commission in terms of the order passed by this Court on 7.9.2006, the petitioner shall entitled to get the benefit as an in-service candidate and rejection of his application on the ground that he was over aged, amounts to willful disobedience/breach of the order passed by this Court on 7.9.2006. It may not be out of place to note here is that the said writ petition was ultimately disposed of by this Court by its judgment and order dated 16th of April 2009 by holding that the petition has served its purpose. The said order is placed on record by Shri. 4 Deshpande. 4. Shri. Deshpande, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has urged that the very purport of the order, if read along with prayer clause made in the writ petition, would convey that it was direction to consider the candidature of the petitioner as an in-service candidate and rejection of his application on the ground that he being over aged, amounts to willful disobedience/ breach of the order. 5. After going through the order dated 7.9.2006, it is apparent that the direction, which was granted in terms of prayer clause "D", was to issue a certificate of experience to the petitioner to have worked as Assistant Public Prosecutor from 15.7.2000 till the date. This has been complied with and there is no dispute about it. It is also not in dispute that the application of the petitioner was forwarded to the MPSC for consideration. It is also not in dispute that the respondent No. 3 MPSC has accepted the application of the petitioner and after considering it, rejected the same on the ground that the petitioner is over aged. It is difficult to accept the contention of Shri. Deshpande that it was implicit in the order to consider the candidature of the petitioner as an in-service candidate. The direction as has been given by this Court to MPSC to accept the application of the petitioner and to consider it, has been complied with. There is no specific direction given by this Court to consider the application of the petitioner as an in-service candidate. In 5 view of this, I do not find any reason to proceed further with the matter and the contempt petition is, therefore, dismissed. [ R.K. DESHPANDE, J. ] ssc/cp314.07