1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Contempt Petition No. 207/2008 in C. A. No. 4152/2008 in C. A. No. 3159/2008 in Writ Petition No. 6272/2006 (Pending) Sahebrao Bapurao Nagpurkar ..vs.. Nana Vithoba Tekade & ors. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders Mr. P. D. Meghe, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. Joshi, Advocate h/f Mr. A. S. Jaiswal, Advocate for respondent no.1 Coram: R. K. Deshpande, J. Date : April 13, 2010 1. This Contempt Petition complains willful disobedience of the order dated 20.08.2008 passed by this Court on Civil Application No. 3159/2008 filed in Writ Petition No. 6272/2006. In the said civil application, a direction was sought for to accommodate the petitioner in one of the two posts of Assistant Teachers, which were said to be lying vacant. In response to the said civil application, reply dated 14.07.2009 was filed by Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Nagpur stating that in the petitioner-School, one post of Assistant Teacher in the High School and one post of 2 Assistant Teacher in the Middle School are vacant presently. This position, according to learned counsel for the petitioner, was not disputed by the Management and hence taking into consideration this position, this Court had passed an order dated 20.08.2008, observing that the fact remains that two posts of Assistant Teacher are vacant and in that case there should not be any difficulty for the Management in accommodating the respondent no.1 strictly without prejudice to the rights of the parties to the writ petition and purely on provisional basis subject to the result of the writ petition. Hence, the civil application was disposed of with a direction to the Management to appoint respondent no.1 purely on provisional basis in one of the two vacant posts of Assistant Teacher, subject to decision of the Writ Petition, within a period of four weeks. 2. The aforesaid order passed on 20.08.2008, was the subject matter of challenge in Letters Patent Appeal No. 293/2008. The Division Bench of this Court passed an order on 27.07.2009 clarifying that the order dated 20.08.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 6272/2008, does not govern two vacancies i.e. one for B.Sc. B.Ed. teacher 3 and the other for B.A. B.P.Ed. teacher as advertised in issue of “Dainik Bhaskar” dated 15.08.2008. With this clarification, the Letters Patent Appeal was disposed of holding that the other part of order passed by learned Single Judge does not call for any interference. 3. Mr. Meghe, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the two posts referred to in the order passed by learned Single Judge on 20.08.2008 were for B. Sc. B.Ed. teacher and B.A. B.Ed. teacher. Whereas Mr. Joshi, the learned counsel for the Management, submits that those posts were for B.Sc. B.Ed. teacher and B.A. B.P.Ed. teacher. It is not disputed that the petitioner possesses qualification of B.A.B.Ed. Hence, the submission of Mr. Joshi, the learned counsel for the respondents, is that the petitioner cannot be accommodated in two vacancies, as he does not possess qualification of B.Sc. B.Ed. or B.A. B.P.Ed. Hence, in order to ascertain whether there is willful disobedience or breach of order passed by the learned Single Judge on 20.08.2008 in Civil Application No. 3159/2008, what is required to be ascertained is whether one of the two posts pertain to the B.A. B.Ed. Teacher. It is a fact that neither in the reply filed by the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla 4 Parishad, Nagpur to C. A. No. 33159/2008 before learned Single Judge nor in the order dated 20.08.2008 it is stated that one of the two vacant posts pertain to B.A., B.Ed. teacher 4. In the Letters Patent Appeal, this Court has clarified that two posts advertised does not govern two vacancies i.e. for B.Sc. B.Ed. teacher and other for B. A. B.P.Ed. teacher, which are referred to in the order passed by learned Single Judge. It is, thus, clear that the petitioner cannot be accommodated in one of the two posts advertised. Hence, the another question, which is required to be seen is; whether there existed posts of Assistant Teachers, more than two? Neither in the order dated 20.08.2008, passed by the learned Single Judge nor in the order dated 21.07.2009 passed by Division Bench, it is stated that more than two posts of Assistant Teachers existed in the School, in which, the petitioner can be accommodated. It is not disputed by the parties that the petitioner cannot be accommodated in the posts of B.Sc. B.Ed. Asstt. Teacher or B.A. B.P.Ed. Asstt. Teacher. 5. In view of the fact; (a) that there is no order either in the Writ Petition or in the Letters Patent Appeal that the post 5 of B.A. B.Ed. Assistant Teacher existed in the School, (b) that there were more than two posts of Assistant teachers, (c) that the order of dated 20.08.2008 passed in Writ Petition No.6272/2008 does not govern the two posts advertised as clarified in Letters Patent Appeal, in my opinion, there is no disobedience of the order passed on 20.08.2008 by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 6272/2006 and that of the order dated 27.07.2009 passed by Division Bench In L. P. A. No. 293/2008. There is no substance in this Contempt Petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed. It is, however, made clear that the parties are at liberty to approach the appropriate forum for further orders. J UDGE kahale