1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO.280 OF 2010 Mr.Rajani Runzaji Pagare .. Petitioner. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr.G.N.Salunke for the petitioner. Mr.A.I.Patel AGP for the State. Mr.M.L.Patil for respondent no.2. Mr.J.Shekhar i/b M/s.J.Shekhar & Co. for respondent no.3. CORAM : V.M.KANADE, J. DATED : 02/02/2011. PC: 1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned A.G.P. appearing for the State and learned counsel appearing for the respondents. . 2. The petitioner is alleging that respondent nos.2 and 3 have committed contempt of the order dated 24th August, 2004 passed by the Division Bench. He submitted that by the said order the respondents were directed to consider the petitioner for appointment as Shikshan Sevak, if she possess the requisite qualification, required for the post of primary teacher subject to availability of the vacant, sanctioned and admissible post as of today. It is submitted that the vacant, sanctioned and admissible S 2 posts are available and inspite of that the petitioner has not been appointed. The affidavit-in-reply is filed by respondent no.3 in which it has been stated that sanctioned post of teachers are 18.5 and already 19 teachers are working in the said school. It is also stated that at present no sanctioned post of teacher is available and, therefore, the petitioner cannot be absorbed. On the other hand it is submitted by the petitioner by filing affidavit-in-rejoinder that the said statement is not correct. 3. In my view, no contempt is committed by respondent no.3 since the only directions given by the Division Bench was to consider the petitioner for appointment and in the affidavit-in- reply it has been stated that they have considered the petitioner for appointment, however, she cannot be absorbed for the reasons stated in the affidavit-in-reply. This court at this stage is not expected in contempt petition to consider factual aspect whether the posts are vacant or not. Hence in my view no contempt as alleged by the petitioner is committed. Contempt petition is dismissed. Needless to state that the petitioner has always an opportunity to file substantive petition for seeking redressal of his grievances. (V.M.KANADE, J.)