1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR. Contempt Petition No. 159 of 2008 in Writ Petition No. 1928 of 2008 (Decided) (Sheshrao Sudam Rokde Vs. Sharad Kurshnarao Selgaonkar) Appeal District : Application No. of 200 Writ petition - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's Orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. S.I. Khan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. A.D. Mohgaonkar, Adv. for R-Sole. CORAM : Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J. DATE : 10 th February, 2009 By the instant petition, the petitioner seeks action against the respondent for willfully disobeying the order passed by the division bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1928/2008, on 23/7/2008. It appears that the Education Officer had, by an order dated 8/4/2008, held that the petitioner was the senior-most Teacher working with the Management. The communication of the Education Officer was challenged by the Management in Writ Petition No. 1928/2008. The division Bench of this Court dismissed the writ petition by an order dated 23rd July, 2008. It was held by the division bench of this Court 2 after considering the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties, that the present petitioner was shown to be senior to one Mr. Nimgaonkar. In such situation, according to the division bench of this Court, the vacancy which occurred due to the refusal of the petitioner no.2 in Writ Petition No. 1928/2008 to accept the post of Head, was required to be filled in by promoting the next senior Teacher than the petitioner no.2 in Writ Petition No. 1928/2008. It appears from the order dated 23rd of July, 2008, that no specific direction was issued to the respondent to immediately appoint the petitioner on the post of Headmaster within a particular time-frame. It is further brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the respondent that the order passed by the division bench of this Court on 23/7/2008 was impugned by the respondent in a petition for special leave to appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after hearing the counsel for the respondent, directed the parties to maintain status quo. This order was passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 5/9/2008. 3 The contempt petition is filed by the petitioner on 6/9/2008. Even otherwise, there is no clear direction by the division bench of this Court in the order dated 23rd of July, 2008 to appoint the present petitioner as a Headmaster immediately within a period of a particular time-frame. In this background, specially in view of the grant of the order of status quo by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 5/9/2008, it is not necessary to continue the contempt proceedings against the respondent. The contempt proceedings against the respondent are hereby dropped. Petition is disposed of accordingly. JUDGE RMP