1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO.171 OF 2010 Mrs.Beena Ninad Patil .. Petitioner V/s The Principal, Vidyavardhini Annasaheb Vartak College & Ors. .. Respondents Ms.Shubhangi V.Deshmukh for the Petitioner. Mr.M.S.Paranjape for Respondent Nos.1 & 2. Mr.Kunal Cheema i/by Mr.Yadunath Chaudhari for Respondent No.3. Mr.A.I.Patel, AGP for Respondent No.4. CORAM: A.S.OKA, J. DATE: 25th November, 2010. P.C.: 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. The breach alleged is of the following part of the Judgment and order dated 13.4.2005:- “2. The petitioner has been serving for more than fourteen years. The issue involved is same as was involved in the Writ Petition No.1914 of 1999 decided on 13th April, 2005. Considering the said decision there is power in the State Government to relax the condition of advertisement and the teacher already holding the post in terms of University resolution can be regularised on the said post.” “3. We see no reason as to why the petitioner who has worked for nearly fourteen years be now subjected to a fresh advertisement. Considering that all the formalities have been complied with, in our opinion this would be a fit case to direct the Respondent No.1 to issue a letter to the petitioner, to firstly treat the petitioner’s service as on probation from the date of first appointment and after completing the probationary period to treat the petitioner as permanent and accordingly issue the letter of appointment.” 2. As far as first Respondent is concerned, a letter on page 17 of the petition shows that substantial compliance has been made by the 1st 2 Respondent with the order of the Court. Paragraph two of the order of this Court does not contain any specific direction to any other Respondent. It only records that there is a power in the State Government to relax the condition of advertisement and that the teacher already holding the post in terms of University resolution can be regularised on the said post. As there is no specific direction to regularise the appointment of the petitioner, no action under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 can be initiated against the other Respondents. If the grievance of the petitioner is that her services are not regularised, it is for the petitioner to adopt appropriate proceedings in that behalf. 3. Subject to what is observed above, contempt petition is disposed of. (A.S.OKA, J.)