1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 54 OF 2006 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 155 OF 2005 (Ku.Alka Shantilal Dakhane .v. Bhartiya Bal Vikas Samaj Sanstha and others) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri R.S. Dhole, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A.M. Deshpande, AGP for the respondent No.4. CORAM : A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. 25TH JULY, 2008. There is a grievance made by the contempt petitioner for non compliance of the order of this Court dated 6th September, 2005 in Writ Petition No.155/2005. It appears that the petitioner came to this Court in the Writ Petition No.155/2005 with a grievance that though the petitioner was working after appointment was made, the management which employed her, had failed to forward the proposal of approval with the concerned Education Officer. It appears that the Education Officer did not file reply and the petition was finally disposed of. This Court consequently made an order observing that it was incumbent on the part of the management to submit a proposal for grant of approval to the Education Officer 2 and, therefore, this Court issued direction to the management to take steps for sending the proposal of the petitioner for grant of approval to the Education Officer within four weeks, if there was no legal impediment in doing so. The petitioner being kept completely in dark had no alternative but to file this contempt petition making a grievance that the order of this Court was not complied with. In response to this contempt petition, the respondent No.4 filed an affidavit dated 04.05.2006 and in the affidavit it has been stated that the proposal was submitted to the Education Officer by the management under letter dated 12.10.2004 i.e. even prior to filing of Writ Petition No.155/2005 and not only that, the same was rejected under order dated 07.02.2005 by the respondent No.5 i.e. even prior to the lodging of the writ petition in this Court. The ground for rejection was that there was no workload available to appoint the petitioner as PTI and that her appointment was not made in accordance with Section 5 of MEPS Act. It appears that the said order dated 07.02.2005 was never served on the petitioner either by the management or by the Education Officer. Nor the petitioner put to challenge the said order in the 3 appropriate Court. The reason behind this appears to be that the Education Officer and the Deputy Director are of the firm opinion that grant or rejection of approval has to be communicated to the concerned candidate not by the officer of the Education Department but by the management and as the officers of the Education Department are not concerned with the candidate, they would not send a communication of rejection or acceptance of the approval to the candidates. This appears to be the impression carried by the officers of the Education Department, which, in my opinion, gives rise to litigation. Now the petitioner cannot be allowed to lose her remedy only because of the fact that she was not communicated with the order dated 07.02.2005 and, therefore, I reserve liberty in favour of the petitioner to challenge the order dated 07.02.2005 before the appropriate Court, notwithstanding the order of this Court dated 06.09.2005 in Writ Petition 155/2005 in the peculiar facts of this case. I further direct that henceforth all the officers of the Education Department shall communicate the decision regarding approval etc. to the concerned candidate or person who is affected by such orders or who is benefited by such orders by marking one more 4 copy to such a person in stead of sitting on its stand that the officers of the Education Department have no concern with the candidate. This will avoid the unnecessary litigation. With this direction, this contempt petition is disposed of. Shri A.M. Deshpande, the learned Assistant Government Pleader is directed to furnish the copy of the order dated 07.02.2005 to the petitioner which is not even placed on record of this petition, within a period of three weeks i.e. by 14th August, 2008, by RPAD. Now since the copy of the said order dated 07.02.2005 is marked as “Annexure-R1” to this affidavit but is not filed, the concerned Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, namely Shri Rajendra Vinayakrao Godhane shall pay the costs of Rs.500/- (rupees five hundred only) to the petitioner by 8th August, 2008. JUDGE *rrg.