1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 311 OF 2007 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 311 OF 2007 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 311 OF 2007 Mrs. Sandhya Pramod Godse ... Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. Sagar Joshi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Imtiyaz Patel, AGP, for theState - Respondent No.1. Mr. Sanhjeev J.Rairkar, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Ms. Lalita Panchakshani, Advocate for respondent No.3. Mr. A.M.Joshi, Advocate for respondent Nos. 5 & 6. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: 21st February,2008. DATE: 21st February,2008. DATE: 21st February,2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. By an order dated 23.2.2007 passed by the respondent No.2, Education Officer, the present petitioner was declared to be surplus and was directed 2 to be relieved and was accordingly relieved from the post of Assistant Teacher. The petitioner challenged that order in Writ Petition No.1998 of 2007. The petition was disposed of as not maintainable without challenging the order of the School Tribunal also. However, the petitioner was given liberty to challenge the order of the School Tribunal wherein she could also challenge the order dated 23.2.2007. This Court also directed the respondent-management and the State Authorities not to give effect to the order dated 23.2.2007 for a period of six weeks. As a result of this, on 4.5.2007, the petitioner made an application to the Management to reinstate her and allow her to resume duties. On 25.5.2007, the Education Officer also gave similar directions to the Management. According to the petitioner, when she reported to resume duty, the President of the Management Trust refused to allow her to resume. This happened on 28.5.2007. Therefore, this Contempt Petition is filed alleging that the order of this Court has not been complied with. Admittedly, after filing of the Contempt Petition, the petitioner has been allowed to resume duties. 3. The learned Counsel for the respondents pointed out that as per the last para of the order passed by this Court in the Writ Petition No.1998 of 2007, the 3 directions were subject to the impugned order not having been given effect and as the order dated 23.2.2007 is already given effect, there was no necessary to reinstate the petitioner. In view of the directions given in that Writ Petition, the petitioner has already filed fresh Writ Petition Nos.4514 of 2007 and 4516 of 2007 and therein directions had been issued to reinstate the petitioner and as per that direction, she has been reinstated and she has also resumed duty. 4. Taking into consideration the above facts and the orders passed by this Court, I find that no contempt of this Court was committed by the respondents. Petition stands disposed of. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)