1 CP No.28/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO.28/2011 IN CIVIL APPLICLATION NO.13871/2010 IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.283/2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.3930/2009. Kaviraj s/o Bhagirath Wagh - PETITIONER VERSUS 1) Anna s/o Dada Ohal and others. - RESPONDENTS ***** Mr.SP Salgar, Adv. h/for Mr.SB Talekar, Advocate for Petitioner; Mr.TG Gaikwad, Adv. h/for Mr.VD Salunke, Adv. for Respondent Nos.1 & 2 Mr.VH Dighe, AGP for Respondent No.3. ----- CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 14th NOVEMBER, 2011. PER COURT : 1) Short affidavit of Kaviraj, the petitioner is tendered, copy thereof received by the learned Counsel for the respondent. The affidavit is taken on record. 2) Heard. 2 CP No.28/2011 3) Writ Petition No.3930/2009 was moved by petitioner Anna and by order dated 27th September, 2010, on evaluation, it was observed that he was entitled for appointment. 4) The aggrieved respondent (petitioner herein) Kaviraj challenge the same in LPA No. 283/2010 and the Division Bench on 28th October, 2010, directed in paragraph no.2, as under : “Notice returnable on 20th 20th December, 2010. Call for record and proceedings from the University and College Tribunal. Parties to maintain status quo as on today. The learned counsel appearing for respective respondents waive service of notice.” 5) It is informed by the respondent/management that pursuant to the directions in Writ Petition No.3930/2009, said Anna is working as a peon in the management or the college. However, the petitioner – Kaviraj is manipulating the record and creating it to show that he is working as a peon, as he is signing some registers maintained by the persons, who claim parallel management. It is informed in the affidavit of Pralhad Patil filed on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that the petitioner – Kaviraj was not working as peon even at the time of writ petition No.3930/2010, that has been specifically so stated in the writ petition. 3 CP No.28/2011 6) Considering the above facts, I do not see that there is any violation of the order of status quo as was granted by the Division bench on 28th October, 2010. There is no contempt. The Contempt Petition lacks merit, dismissed. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/