1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 112 OF 2008 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders 1. Heard Shri Vivek Dhage, Advocate for the Petitioner and Smt. R.K.Ladda, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 2 This contempt petition is filed alleging that this court by order dated 23.2.2005 has dismissed writ petition No.1320 of 2004 filed by present respondent No.3 Avinash Keshvrao Jadhav by which he prayed that he may be allowed to work as Head Master/ Assistant Teacher in Shriram Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Arenoli-Sarola, Taluka Ausa, District, Latur and pay him regular salary and consequent benefits. He had also prayed for mandatory order directing Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to 2 accord approval to the petitioner's appointment as Head Master/Assistant Teacher in the school since his initial appointment i.e. 26.6.1995 onwards and pay him regular salary and arrears of salary with all consequential benefits. It was also prayed that pending hearing and final disposal of the writ petition, Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 be restrained from granting continuance of service of Respondent No.5 and approval to the same. 3. Learned Advocate Shri Dhage for the contempt petitioner has taken me through paragraphs 2,6,7 and 8 of the judgment in the said writ petition. He particularly emphasized observations of this court in paragraph 2 of judgment in said Writ Petition No.1320 of 2004 which reads:- "2................................ We make it clear t hat upon going through the entire record of the writ petition and more particularly the earlier decisions, we are 3 convinced that petitioner is not entitled to any relief in this writ petition by invoking our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for more than one reasons. Firstly, as will be demonstrated lateron, he he was not qualified for being appointed as Head Master, which he claims to have been appointed on 26.6.1995 and for which appointment, he is now seeking confirmation, salary and approval. On going through the earlier history of litigation, he can be seen to be changing his stands or at least suppressing some of the things while coming before this Court, and thirdly he had approached this court for practically the same relief earlier by Writ Petition No.4923 /2000, which was decided by this Court and petitioner has suffered that decision without any challenge." 4 4. Ultimately, writ petition was dismissed and non e of the reliefs claimed by the petitioner were granted. In spite of the said position, on 25.2.2008, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have granted approval for appointment of present Respondent No. 3 as an Assistant Teacher and in charge Head Master with effect from 24.12.2007. The copy of the order of approval is produced at Exhibit C, which is dated 25.2.2008. 5. In the reply affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent No.2, dated 22.7.2008, it is mentioned in paragraph 6 that in Writ Petition No.4923 of 2000 decided on 29.10.2002 and following directions were given. " However, it is made clear that if the Petitioner thus submit the necessary certificat3e showing that he has passed B.Ed. course, he may be considered for the post of Head Master/ Asstt. Teacher as the case may be, if vacancies exists." 5 6. It is stated that thereafter, proposal was submitted by Secretary of Sant Tukaram Bahuuddeshiya Shikshan Sanstha, Erandi Sarola Taluka Ausa, District Latur for approval of services of Respondent No.3 and as per the directions given in the said writ Petition, they have accorded approval which is produced at Exhibit C. Copy of the decision in Writ Petition No.4923 of 2000 is enclosed to the reply and we find above observations in that judgment. There is additional affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondent. 7. Civil contempt is defined under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 as below "2(b) Civil contempt" means wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a Court or wilful breach of or undertaking given to a Court. " 6 8. This contempt petition is filed for alleged civil contempt. By the decision in Writ Petition No.1320 of 2004 decided on 23.2.2005, reliefs claimed by present Respondent No. 3 were refused, but there is no prohibition for giving approval in case he subsequently fulfills requirements and under the circumstances, if the order of approval came to be passed by Respondents after three years on 25.2.2008, that cannot be said to be contempt of the court. 9. In the circumstances, in my opinion, contempt petition deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. However, the contempt petitioner is at liberty to challenge the legality, propriety and validity of the approval granted to the services of present Respondent No.3 before appropriate forum by appropriate proceedings. Date:30/09/2009 (P.R.BORKAR, J.) pnd/cp112.08 7