1 CP NO.213 OF 2010 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD 22 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 213/2010 In WP/2640/2008 (Mahesh Sampatrao Rakh Vs. TheState) -------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders Mr. S.G.Jadhavar, Adv., for the petitioner. Mr. S.V.Kurundkar, Additional Government Pleader, for respondent State. Mr. P.P.More, Adv., for R.2. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE:8-12-2010 1. Petitioners filed Writ Petition No.2640/2008 with following prayers: "A. Rule may kindly be issued. B) By issue of writ of mandamus, order, or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ, the respondents may be directed to change the cadre of the petitioner from Scientific to Technical with effect from 5.5.2000 i.e. the first request made by the petitioner and to grant him all the benefits to which 2 CP NO.213 OF 2010 the petitioner is found entitled from that date. C) By issue of writ of mandamus, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ, the respondents may be directed to appoint the petitioner as Sub Regional Officer with respondent (B)oard with effect from 16.10.2007; D) By issue of an appropriate writ, order, direction in the nature of writ, the respondents be directed to grant the seniority in favour of the petitioner from such date as this Hon'ble Court would direct them to be appropriate for the post to which the petitioner will be appointed; .... ... ...." 2. The Division Bench of this Court, by order dt.29th July, 2008, observed in paragraph nos. 3 and 4 as under: "3. Our attention is invited to para 12 of the reply, in respect of appointment of one Shri Sandeep Tope and Dr.Anant Kamble. Even in respect of these two appointments from 3 CP NO.213 OF 2010 Scientific Branch to Technical Branch, respondents have pointed out that these are the provisional and will be reviewed. 4. Considering the fact that there is no provision for appointing persons from Scientific Branch to Technical Branch, we find no merit in the petition. Accordingly petition is disposed of." 3. The grievance of the petitioner is, inspite of there being direction from this Court, the petitioner herein is not accommodated from Scientific to Technical Branch and the matter is dragged at the behest of the respondent. 4. Learned Counsel for the respondent invited my attention to above referred prayer, the fate of the writ petition coupled with affidavit in reply on behalf of respondent no.2, particularly paragraph no.5 therein. In paragraph No.5 it is illustrated that the case of two persons; Dr.Kamble and Mr.Sandeep Tope was 4 CP NO.213 OF 2010 considered by the Review committee and decision was taken which is illustrated as against Appeal No. 6/2010, shown at page No.61 of the compilation. 5. In the light of above details, it cannot be said that there is any breach of the other directions of this Court or otherwise on the part of the respondents. Contempt Petition lacks merit, dismissed. Respondents discharged. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE ... AGP/213-10cp