1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Contempt Petition No. 170/2008 IN W.P. NO. 5462/2007 (DECIDED) (Shrihari Sadashiv Ganvir VERSUS Divisional Deputy Director of Education & another) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri A.Z. Jibhkate, counsel for the petitioner. Shri N.S. Khubalkar, Assistant Government Pleader for the R-1 & 2. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : FEBRUARY 6, 2009. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. By the instant petition, the petitioner seeks initiation of action against the respondents for willfully disobeying the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 12.02.2008 in Writ Petition No.5462/2007. It is the case of the petitioner that though the respondent-Education Officer was directed to complete the process as per the provisions of Rule 25-A of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981, at the earliest, the respondents had not done anything in the matter, thereby flouting the order passed by the Division bench of this Court on 12.02.2008. 2 On a perusal of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 12.02.2008, it appears that the only direction issued by the Court to the Education Officer was to complete the process as per the provisions of Rule 25-A of the Rules of 1981. It is necessary to peruse the provisions of Rule 25-A(2), which is a relevant Rule. In view of the provisions of this Rule, the Education Officer is duty bound to take the name of the employee in an aided school, whose services stand terminated, in accordance with Sub Rule (1) of Rule 25-A(2) on account of derecognition, on the waiting list and the Rule then stipulates that the Education Officer or the Deputy Director of Education, as the case may be, shall recommend the name of such an employee to the managements of newly opened aided schools or the existing aided schools, which are allowed to open additional division, or classes, for consideration. 3 A perusal of this Rule clearly reveals that the Education Officer is duty bound to take the name of such an employee on the waiting list and to recommend the name of such an employee to the management of a newly opened aided school or the existing aided school, which is allowed to open additional divisions or classes, merely for consideration. Thus, Sub Rule 2 of Rule 25-A of the Rules of 1981 requires the Education Officer to take the name of the employee on the waiting list and recommend the name to the management of newly opened aided school or the existing aided schools which are permitted to open additional division or classes. It is now necessary to see whether the Education Officer has completed the process as per the provisions of Rule 25-A of the Rules of 1981 as directed by the Division Bench of this Court by the order dated 12.02.2008. A perusal of the affidavit filed by the respondents reveals that the name of the petitioner has been taken on the waiting list. 4 It is brought to the notice of this Court by Shri N.S. Khubalkar, the learned Assistant Government Pleader, by taking this Court through the affidavit, that in the Gadchiroli region, no school is newly opened and there is also no existing school, which is allowed to open additional divisions or classes after 12.02.2008. It is further brought to the notice of this Court that though no new school has been opened in Gadchiroli Region and an existing school is also not allowed to open additional division or classes after 12.02.2008, the name of the petitioner has been recommended by the respondent to some other institutions and management. It is amply clear from the submissions made on behalf of the parties and on perusal of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 12.02.2008 as also the provisions of the Rules of 1981 that the respondents have not disobeyed the orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 12.02.2008 and, in fact, the order dated 12.02.2008 has been complied with. 5 The contempt proceedings initiated against the respondents are hereby dropped. The contempt petition is disposed of with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE