1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 198 OF 2007 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1250/2002 (Dr. Anil Sukhdeorao Dhage Vs. Amitabh Chandra, & ors.) Appeal District : Application No. of 200 Writ petition Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. CORAM : Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J. DATED : 17 th APRIL, 2008. Heard Shri Bhoot for the petitioner, and Mrs. Bodade, A.G.P., for respondents. By this petition, the petitioner seeks an action against the respondent nos. 1 to 3 and 5 for not taking cognizance of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 11/9/2002 in Writ Petition No. 1250/2002. The Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.1250/2002 passed the following order on 11/9/2002: “Heard. Rule. In this petition, the petitioner is replaced by respondent no.5. As on today, the respondent no.5 is working. Hence the question of stay in this petition would not arise. However, by way of 2 interim relief, we direct the Government that if any post is vacant where the petitioner can be accommodated anywhere, the petitioner be considered for that post until duly selected candidate through M.P.S.C. is available. Respective respondents waive service.” It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that though the respondents were directed to accommodate the petitioner until duly selected candidate from M.P.S.C. was made available, the respondents have illegally terminated the services of the petitioner by the order dated 23/10/2007. On the other hand, it is submitted on behalf of the respondents by learned Assistant Government Pleader that during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner came to be appointed as an ad hoc Dental Surgeon from time to time for a period of 120 days only on certain terms and conditions, because there was no regular appointment of a candidate duly selected by the M.P.S.C. It is further submitted on behalf of the respondents that the orders annexed to the contempt petition themselves reflect that the appointment of the petitioner for a period of 120 days was in pursuance of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 11/9/2002. It is also submitted on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner was considered as per the directions of 3 the Division Bench and was given ad hoc temporary appointment for 120 days on his furnishing an undertaking on a stamp paper that he would not practice privately and would also follow the working hours and would treat all the patients who were admitted in the Hospital (Saoner Health Center) and would not refer them for treatment out of the Hospital. The petitioner had further undertaken that in case his behaviour was not proper and if he is discontinued, there would be no objection from his side. It is submitted on behalf of the respondents that there were many complaints against the petitioner made by the public, patients and media and also from the concerned Head of the Department. It is further submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader that a preliminary enquiry was conducted and the petitioner was not continued from 23/7/2007 after his term of 120 days had expired. It is lastly submitted on behalf of the respondents that the Division Bench of this Court had not issued any direction to accommodate the petitioner, without considering him for being accommodated on that post and had, in fact, directed the respondents to consider the petitioner on a post which was vacant and not filled in by a duly selected candidate through M.P.S.C. On the basis of the order passed by the Division bench on 4 11/9/2002, it is submitted on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner was duly considered during the pendency of the petition and was appointed temporarily from time to time and when there were serious complaints against the petitioner, he was discontinued with effect from 21/7/2007, when the term of 120 days of his last appointment had expired. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and also perused the order passed by the Division Bench on 11/9/2002 which is noted herein above. It is clear from the order that the petitioner was not working on any post at the time when the order dated 11/9/2002 was passed and the respondent no.5 was working on the post. The Division Bench of this Court had directed the Government to consider the case of the petitioner for accommodating him anywhere or on any post until duly selected candidate through M.P.S.C., was available. It appears that the respondents have rightly considered the petitioner from time to time and had also granted him appointment temporarily for a period of 120 days. His last appointment of 120 days was discontinued by the order dated 20/7/2007, in view of the serious complaint against the petitioner. The petitioner has not filed any counter affidavit to dispute the statements made on 5 behalf of the respondent no.2 in the affidavit dated 12/2/2008. In this view of the matter, there is no material whatsoever for taking action against the respondents under the Contempt of Courts Act. The contempt petition is, therefore, dismissed. JUDGE RMP