cp57.10.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CONTEMPE PETITION NO. 57/2010 in WRIT PETITION NO. 1315/2007 Sunil Anandrao Bhoyar ..versus... Mr. G.P.Garad Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders Smt. Neeta Jog, Advocate for petitioner. Coram: R. K. Deshpande, J. Date : 22 nd March, 2010 This contempt petition complains about willful disobedience of the judgment and order dated 28th August, 2008, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1315/2007. The said writ petition filed by the present petitioner was allowed and the order dated 13.10.2006 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development Department, Amravati, in Appeal No. 29/2005 was quashed and set aside and the matter was remitted back to him for fresh hearing and disposal in accordance with law after considering the Govt. Resolution cp57.10.odt 2 dated 25.09.2006 and all other contentions which shall be advanced by the parties before him. Smt. Neeta Jog, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the learned Additional Commissioner, Amravati, by the order dated 13.10.2006 which was impugned in Writ Petition No. 1315/2007, had dismissed Appeal No. 29/2006 by holding that the petitioner had not acquired the D.Ed. Qualification and was, therefore, not eligible for being appointed as Primary School Teacher. The said Appeal was not dismissed on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to decide the same. She further points out that a claim was made before this Court in the aforesaid writ petition that on the basis of G.R. Dated 25.9.2006 in respect of Ashram Schools, a protection was given in service to a teacher for a period of 5 years, during which time he is expected to acquire the D.Ed. Training qualification. However, this G.R was not taken into consideration and this fact was also conceded by the Assistant Govt. Pleader appearing in Appeal that the G.R dated 25.9.2009 was not taken into consideration. In the aforesaid factual background, the matter was remitted back to the Commissioner. However, the contempt cp57.10.odt 3 alleged is that the learned Additional Commissioner has now, after remand, dismissed the appeal by an order dated 6.7.2009 on the ground that he has no jurisdiction, which was not the ground assigned while dismissing the Appeal No. 29/05 on earlier occasion I.e on 13.12.2006. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional Commissioner could not have dismissed appeal on the ground that he has no jurisdiction to decide the appeal, particularly when this was not the ground while deciding appeal on earlier occasion and should have passed an order after taking into consideration the G.R dated 25.09.2006, as directed by this Court. Hence, this is the contempt. By the order dated 6.7.2009 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development Department, it has been held that the jurisdiction to decide the question of grant of protection of G.R dated 25.9.2006 lies with the School Tribunal in terms of Ashram Schools Code, 2001, in the ultimate challenge to the termination order. In view of this, it cannot be said that in dismissal of the appeal on the ground that he has no jurisdiction, any willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court has occasioned. Hence, civil contempt as alleged needs to be dismissed. cp57.10.odt 4 However, while going through the order passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Amravati, the following portion is noticed. ek= ek- U;k;ky;kps fn- 28-8-2008 ps vkns'kkuwlkj fu.kZ; ?ksrkauk g;k foHkkxkyk v'kk izdkjps vihy pkyfo.;kps vf/kdkj vkgsr fdaok ukgh gs riklwu igk.ks vko';d gksrs- From the aforesaid observations made in the order passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development Department, Amravati, it prima facie seems that the provisions of Section 2(c)(i) of the Contempt of Courts Act are attracted, as it amounts to lowering down the authority of this Court. The learned Additional Commissioner has observed that this Court ought to have examined the issue as to whether the Additional Commissioner has jurisdiction to decide the matter before remanding it back to him for afresh decision. In view of this, put up this matter before the Division Bench of this Court to consider this issue in accordance with law. The petitioner to provide extra copy of the petition within one week. J UDGE Rvjalit