IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 379 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 429 OF 2008 PRINCIPAL CHIEF ENGINEER P.W.D. PANAJI ... Applicant Versus AMAR VITHAL NAIK ... Respondent Mr. S.S. Kantak, Advocate General with Mr. V. Rodrigues, Addl. Government Advocate, for applicant. Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, Senior Advocate with Mr. P. Lotlikar, Advocate for original petitioner. Mr. N. Vaze, Advocate for petitioner in Writ Petition No. 388 of 2007. Coram:- B. P. DHARMADHIKARI & U. D. SALVI, JJ. Date:- 24th April, 2009 P.C. The prayer is to modify the earlier order dated 1.9.2008 passed in Writ Petition No.429/08 disposing of the same. It is urged that challenging the advertisement in pursuant of which interviews were held, Writ Petition No.388/07 came to be filed and by interim orders passed in it all appointments were subjected to its result. The learned Advocate General, therefore, requested to modify the order dated 1.9.08 on these lines so as to bring it in consonance with the orders passed in Writ Petition 388/07. Senior Advocate Shri Lotlikar, who appeared for original petitioner in Writ Petition No.429/08 has no objection if such a condition/qualification is incorporated in the order dated 1.9.08. 2. However, learned Advocate N. Vaze who appears for petitioner in Writ Petition NO.388/07 has contended that the original petitioner has already been appointed by the State Government in collusion and that appointment constitutes contempt of this Court. Contempt petition filed in that respect was argued for quite sometime before the learned Single Judge and there learned Advocate General made a statement that the respondents will move appropriate application purging contempt in writ petition No.388/07. He, therefore, states that by moving this application in Writ Petition No.429/08 contempt is not purged. He further argues that as all these facts are not disclosed in the civil application, the relief of modification cannot be granted. We have asked him to point out the prejudice, if any, caused to the petitioner in Writ Petition No.388/07 by the appointment of Amar V. Naik or by modification as sought. The learned Counsel is not in a position to point out any such prejudice. 3. In the present matter, we are not concerned with issue of contempt at all and the said issue can be appropriately dealt with by this Court in suitable jurisdiction. 4. In the circumstances, we find that order dated 1.9.08 needs to be modified so as to bring it in accordance with the directions issued by this Court in Writ Petition No.388/07. Accordingly, we modify the said order and declare that the appointment of the said petitioner Shri Amar V. Naik is subject to the result of Writ Petition No.388/07. 5. Civil Application is, accordingly, allowed. B. P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. U. D. SALVI, J. at*