1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Contempt Petition No. 231/2008 IN W.P.NO. 1459/2008 (DECIDED) (Vaidya Lalchand Hajarilal Jaiswal VERSUS S.A. Rathod & another) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri R.K. Deshpande, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Abhijit Deshpande, counsel for the R-1 & 2. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : FEBRUARY 18, 2009. By this contempt petition, the petitioner seeks action against the respondent nos.1 and 2 under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for non compliance of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 27.08.2008 in Writ Petition No.1459/2008. It is the case of the petitioner that in terms of the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 27.08.2008 in Writ Petition No.1459/2008, the respondent no.1 was directed to consider the issue in the light of the facts mentioned by the Division Bench in the judgment as well as the other relevant factors and the procedure applicable while reconsidering the proposal for grant of approval to the appointment of the petitioner 2 on the post of Professor in the subject of Panchkarma. It is the case of the petitioner that the Division Bench of this Court had clearly held in the judgment dated 27.08.2008 that the University should have considered the question of eligibility of the petitioner vis a vis the experience stipulated in sub-clause (ii) of Clause 14 of the Regulations of the year 1986. According to the petitioner, the respondents had once again refused to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Professor in Panchkarma for the selfsame reason that the petitioner did not possess the teaching experience in the subject of Panchkarma. According to the petitioner, this is in gross violation of the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court by the judgment dated 27.08.2008. It is the case of the petitioner that certain observations were made by the Court in regard to the clarification issued by the Central Council of Indian Medicine on 06.12.2006 and, therefore, it was necessary for the respondents to reconsider the proposal of the petitioner for grant of approval by considering the provisions of Clause 14(ii) of 3 Regulations of 1986 and the clarification issued by the Central Council of Indian Medicine on 06.12.2006. The respondent no.1 has filed a reply to the notice and stated that the respondent no.1 was not a party to the Writ Petition No.1459/2008. The respondent no.1, in effect, stated in the reply that the respondent no.1 has merely communicated the decision of the respondent no.2 to the petitioner. The respondent no.2 has also filed the reply on affidavit and has stated that the respondent has not committed contempt of Court by disobeying the directions issued by the Court by the judgment dated 27.08.2008. According to the respondent no.2, on receiving the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court, the Vice Chancellor of Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, Nashik constituted a three member committee headed by the Dean, Faculty of Unani, Maharashtra University of Health Sciences to reconsider the case of the petitioner for grant of approval. The committee, in its meeting dated 21.10.2008, discussed the matter in detail and found that the petitioner was not 4 eligible to be appointed on the post of Professor in the Subject of Panchkarma and, hence, approval could not be granted for his appointment on that post. It is stated in the reply that the judgment was passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 27.08.2008 and the communication/letter issued by the Central Council of Indian Medicine dated 25.08.2008 was not produced before the Court at the relevant time. It is stated in the reply that though the earlier communication of the Central Council of Indian Medicine dated 07.12.2006 provides that Panchkarma is an allied subject of Kaya Chikitsa, the said reference is not found in the subsequent communication issued by the Central Council of Indian Medicine on 25.08.2008. It is stated in the reply that the Central Council of Indian Medicine is the Central Apex body and its communications, Office Orders, Rules, clarifications, etc. are binding on the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences and its officials. The respondent no.2 has stated in the reply that the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences was duty bound to follow the communication dated 5 25.08.2008, which did not provide that Panchkarma was an allied subject of Kaya Chikitsa. Thus, according to the respondent no.2 in view of the decision of the committee constituted by the Vice Chancellor as also the communication issued by the Central Council of Indian Medicine on 25.08.2008 and the resolutions of the Academic Council, the approval could not have been granted to the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Professor in the Subject of Panchkarma. According to the respondent no.2, the High Court had directed the respondent no.2 to reconsider the proposal of the petitioner for grant of approval to the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Professor in the subject of Panchkarma, afresh, on its own merits, according to law, as well as in the light of the observations made by the Court in the judgment and, hence, the matter was considered by the respondent no.2 on its merit in accordance with the Law after considering the observations made by the Court in the judgment dated 27.08.2008 and, hence, the respondents cannot be held guilty of committing contempt of Court. 6 I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and have perused the judgment dated 27.08.2008, of which the contempt is alleged. The Division Bench of this Court had directed the respondents to reconsider the proposal of the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of Clause 14(ii) of the Regulations of the year 1986 and it also made a reference to the clarification issued by the Central Council of Indian Medicine dated 06.12.2008. The Court had directed the respondents to reconsider the proposal on its own merit and in accordance with law and the observations made by the Court. It appears that the Three Member Committee was constituted by the Vice Chancellor to examine the issue and the Three Member Committee, after considering the matter in the light of the observations made by the High Court in the judgment dated 27.08.2008 and the other relevant documents, came to a conclusion that the petitioner could not have been appointed on the post of Professor in Panchkarma. In such circumstances, specially when certain other communications and resolutions were considered by the 7 respondent no.2 before rendering the decision on the proposal, it cannot be said that the respondents have willfully and deliberately disobeyed the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court by the judgment dated 27.08.2008 in Writ Petition No.1459/2008. In case, the petitioner is aggrieved by the decision of the respondent no.2, the petitioner may take recourse to the appropriate remedy as advised but, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, it is necessary to drop the contempt proceedings against the respondents. The contempt proceedings against the respondents are hereby dropped. The notice issued to the respondents on 15.12.2008 stands discharged. The contempt petition is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE