1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR C.P. NO. 98/2011 IN W.P. NO.1741/2001 (D) (SUDHIR RAJARAM BURAD & ANOTHER VERSUS SUDRATH RATHO, M.D. & ANOTHER) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri S.N. Gaikwad, counsel for the petitioners. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : OCTOBER 20 , 2011 . Heard Shri S.N. Gaikwad, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri M.K. Pathan, The learned Assistant Government Pleader, who assisted the Court in the matter. By this petition, the petitioners seek an action against the respondents under the Contempt of Courts Act for alleged disobedience of the judgment passed by this Court on 30.11.2007 in Writ Petition No.1741 of 2001. It appears that by the judgment dated 30.11.2007, the Division Bench of this Court had directed the respondents to prepare and publish the list of eligible candidates from the Project Affected Persons category and after finalizing the list, offer employment to those persons, who are found eligible for appointment. Though this Court had issued the aforesaid directions by the judgment dated 30.11.2007, it appears that the respondents would not be in a position to comply with the order in view of the law laid down by the Full Bench in the judgment reported in 2009(4) Mh.L.J. 961 (Rajendra Pandurang Pagare & another Versus State of Maharashtra & others), which states that the posts 2 reserved for projected affected persons must be advertised to enable all the eligible candidates from that category to submit applications to compete with others. This Court has laid down in the Full Bench decision that the Project Affected Persons cannot be appointed without advertising the posts. If that be so, the petitioners cannot seek an implementation of the directions issued by this Court by the judgment dated 30.11.2007 as those directions cannot be implemented in view of the subsequent Full Bench decision, reported in 2009(4) Mh.L.J. 961 (Rajendra Pandurang Pagare & another Versus State of Maharashtra & others). Hence, in the aforesaid set of facts, it cannot be said that the respondents have willfully breached the directions issued by this Court in the judgment dated 30.11.2007. The contempt petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE