{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 62 OF 2006 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2780 OF 2005 Lata d/o Suryakant Tuptewar and others Petitioners Versus Parmeshwar Jakikore & others Respondents Mr.Pravin Mandlik, Senior Counsel for petitioners. Mr.V.B.Ghadge, A.G.P. for respondent no.1. Dismissed as against Respondent No.2 as per Court’s order dated 15.02.2007. Respondent No.3 served. Respondent No.4 deleted as per Court’s order dated 19.07.2006. CORAM : R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 16 th March, 2011 PER COURT: 1 The petitioners are alleging non observance of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.2780/2005, dated 25.08.2005. 2 This Court, while dealing with the petition, has passed the following order: “...... In the light of the submissions {2} recorded above, we permit the petitioner to withdraw this writ petition and keep all the contentions raised in the petition open for consideration. We further direct the Government to decide the representation at Exhibit A-1 and Exhibit A-2 as expeditiously as possible and in any event within six months from today in the light of the policy of the Government relating to absorption of Census employees. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed with the aforesaid directions with no order as to costs.” 3 Respondent-State has presented affidavit-in-reply and it has been contended that the representation tendered by the petitioners has been considered and the request has been turned down. A communication was issued to the petitioners on 30.09.2005 by the District Collector, Nanded, informing that the request made by the petitioners, for accommodating them in Government employment, is not in consonance with the policy framed by the State Government. Thus, the District Collector has communicated rejection of the request made by the petitioners. A communication was also issued on 11.02.2006 informing the decision taken by the Government on 30.05.2005. Similarly, the petitioners have also been communicated by communication dated 22.02.2006 that the request made in the representation is not liable to be considered and there arises no question of taking any action in pursuance to the communication dated 01.03.2005. {3} 4 Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that consideration of the representation by the State Government is not in consonance with the policy adopted by the Government, which is reflected in the Government Resolutions issued from time to time. 5 While dealing with the Contempt Petition, the correctness or otherwise of the decision rendered by the State Government is not a matter of consideration. The contempt petitioners, if are not satisfied with the decision rendered by the State Government, may have to adopt the remedies as available in law. So far as the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court, while permitting withdrawal of the petition, have been complied with. The Contempt Petition does not deserve any consideration. 6 Contempt Petition, therefore, stands dismissed. R.M.BORDE JUDGE adb/cp6206