1 cp168.09.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 168 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 6021 OF 1995 Sadashiv Hari Patil ...Petitioner. Vs. Nandini Bhalchandra Patil, The President, The Jana Seva Mandal & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr. Vaibhav P. Patankar, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondent No.1. CORAM : J.H.BHATIA, J. DATE : 30th September, 2010 P.C.: 1. After some discussion the learned Counsel for the petitioner makes a statement that the observations made in para 6 of the order dated 7th July, 2008 passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Marlapalle, in Writ Petition No. 6021 of 1995, was not properly interpreted by the management and as a result of that with effect from 30-4- 2007 the services of the petitioner have been terminated. On reading the observations in para 6, it is does not appear that the petitioner was treated as a permanent teacher. In fact the order shows that he was to be continued as Assistant Teacher as a fresh appointee and he was to 2 cp168.09.sxw be absorbed against the available vacancy in nearest future. It does not show that he was permanent employee. In view of this, it is difficult to hold that any contempt of Court has been committed by issuing termination order. 2. Therefore, the petition dismissed. 3 However, if the petitioner so desires, he shall have liberty to move for review of the order passed on 7th July, 2008. (J.H.BHATIA, J.)