1 Contempt Petition No.348/2010 in Writ Petition No.5078/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO.348 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.5078 OF 2010 Ahmed Tanvir Fatema Ahmed Sharif ... PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & ors. ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri D.P. Palodkar, Advocate for petitioner Shri D.V. Tele, A.G.P. for State Shri A.R. Nikam, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 6 Shri U.B. Bondar, Advocate for respondent Nos.3 and 4 Shri Yogesh Bobade, Advocate holding for Shri S.B. Tope, Advocate for respondent No.5 ..... CORAM : S.S. SHINDE, J. DATED : 27th June, 2011. PER COURT : 1. This contempt petition alleges disobedience of the order dated 29.6.2010, passed by Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.5078/2010. Counsel appearing for the petitioner invited my attention to para Nos.3 to 5 of the said order and submitted that, Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 6 in the Writ Petition made the following statement before the Division Bench: 2 Contempt Petition No.348/2010 in Writ Petition No.5078/2010 “Those candidates who have been allotted establishment code from Urdu medium open category and who are lower in the order of merit than the petitioner are wait listed candidates would be selected as and when vacancy arise.” 2. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the undertaking given by the counsel for the respondent in the Writ Petition is not abided. In fact, no wait list was maintained by the respondents. The less meritorious candidates than the petitioner are given appointments at Aurangabad. Though the petitioner has secured 127 marks, seven candidates having less marks than her, are given establishment code at Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the statement by the counsel for the respondent No.2 in the Writ Petition that, no candidate below the petitioner in the order of merit from Urdu medium from open category has been allotted the establishment code from Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad is incorrect. Therefore, according to the counsel for the petitioner in fact, no wait list was maintained by the respondents and also less meritorious students than petitioner are given establishment code at Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad, contrary to undertaking given to this Court. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the Zilla Parishad submits that, at the relevant time, there was requirement of 10 3 Contempt Petition No.348/2010 in Writ Petition No.5078/2010 posts from the Urdu medium open category and accordingly, it was communicated to the respondent No.2 in the Writ Petition. It is not in dispute that the 10 posts for which Zilla Parishad requested the respondents, are filled in by more meritorious students than the petitioner herein. The petitioner herein who secured 127 marks, was allotted establishment code at Thane district. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was allotted establishment code at Thane district. 4. It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that he has secured information from the respondents by filing application undr Right to Information Act that, no any such wait list was prepared by the respondents/ authorities and the seven candidates who have secured less marks than the present petitioner are allowed establishment code at Aurangabad District. Therefore, according to the counsel for the petitioner, undertaking given to this Court is not abided by the respondents and they have appointed the less meritorious candidates than petitioner to the establishment code for Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that, as per the Government Resolution dated 6.8.2001, once the candidates are considered on merits and if there are no 4 Contempt Petition No.348/2010 in Writ Petition No.5078/2010 candidates from the reserved category, in that case, the candidates from open category are offered those seats. According to him, the wait list was maintained by the respondents and accordingly, the wait list was followed. According to him, since the case of the petitioner was considered and petitioner was allotted establishment code at Thane district and same had been refused, there was no question of further considering the case of the petitioner. This position is disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the allotted establishment code of Thane district is not refused by the petitioner. 6. I have given due consideration to the submissions of the respective counsel. It is not in dispute that the Zilla Parishad only sent request for ten posts from Urdu medium general category reserved for female and accordingly those ten candidates have been taken from the merit list. . All ten candidates are having more marks than the petitioner. Once the choice was given to the petitioner by allotting establishment code of Thane district, there was no question of having her name in the wait list. Therefore, the statement made before the Division Bench of this Court was in respect of 5 Contempt Petition No.348/2010 in Writ Petition No.5078/2010 candidates who have been allotted establishment code from Urdu medium open category and who are lower in the order of merit than petitioner are wait listed candidates and accordingly, seven wait listed candidates are taken from wait list. Therefore, viewed from any angle, it is difficult to hold that the respondents have not followed the undertaking given to this Court or disobeyed any direction or order of the Division Bench. In my opinion, there is no willful disobedience as such so as to entertain this Contempt proceedings. Therefore, the Contempt Petition is disposed of. Notice stands discharged. 7. If the petitioner wishes to file review petition in the disposed of Writ Petition, she can do so. Any observations made hereinabove while disposing of this Contempt Petition are restricted to the contempt proceedings only. ( S.S. SHINDE, J. ) fmp/cp348.10