1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Contempt Petition No. 10/2009 (Aniruddha Mansaram Kore VERSUS Ku.Mamta Jha & others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri Amol Mardikar, counsel for the petitioner. Shri N.S. Khubalkar, Assistant Government Pleader for the R-1. Shri S.K. Pardhy, counsel for the R-2 & 3. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : MARCH 24, 2009. By this petition, the petitioner seeks action against the respondents for willful non-compliance of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 05.12.2008 in Writ Petition No.2083/2003. By the judgment dated 05.12.2008, this Court had directed the respondent nos.4 and 5 to the petition i.e., the Headmaster of the School and the Education Society to take immediate steps to invite applications for the post of Assistant Teacher under the respondent no.4 school. This Court further directed that the petitioner should be given a preference in the selection process for the said post. 2 The Court directed that the selection process should be finalized by 31.12.2008 and the appointment should be made on 01.01.2009. The Court further directed that the proposal for approval should be submitted by the respondent no.3 to the petition, the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Gondia within a period of fifteen days from the date of appointment and the same should be cleared by the Education Officer as expeditiously as possible and in any case within four weeks from its receipt. According to the petitioner, the management did not follow the directions issued by the Division Bench on 05.12.2008 by immediately advertising the post and inviting the applications and in stead sought permission from the Education Officer to advertise the same. According to the petitioner, the Education Officer also erroneously without considering the directions issued by the High Court by the judgment dated 05.12.2008 in Writ 3 Petition No.2083/2003, permitted the management to advertise the post of Shikshan Sewak in stead of Assistant Teacher. Being aggrieved by these actions, the petitioner immediately filed this contempt petition. After the notice was issued to the respondents, the management earlier informed this Court that it was under the impression that it was required to seek permission from the Education Officer to advertise the post of Assistant Teacher. Later on, it was realized by the management that in terms of the judgment dated 05.12.2008, there was no question of seeking any permission as the management was asked to take steps immediately to invite applications for the post of Assistant Teacher and not for the post of Shikshan Sewak. During the pendency of this contempt petition, the management purged the contempt, if any, by advertising the post of Assistant Teacher on 02.03.2009. The petitioner 4 was duly selected for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher and was appointed as such. The petitioner is working as Assistant Teacher as on this date. The management has submitted before this Court that the management has sent the proposal seeking the approval to the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Assistant Teacher on 16.03.2009. It is now for the Education Officer to comply with the further directions issued by the High Court by the judgment dated 05.12.2008. In terms of the judgment dated 05.12.2008, the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Gondia has to clear the proposal for grant of approval to the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Assistant Teacher as expeditiously as possible and in any case within a period of 4 weeks from the date of the receipt thereof. 5 In view of the developments which occurred during the pendency of the petition and in view of the affidavits filed on behalf of the respondents, it is clear that the respondents had not deliberately or willfully flouted the directions issued by this Court in the judgment dated 05.12.2008. The contempt petition is, therefore, disposed of with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE