1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Contempt Petition No. 15/2010 IN W.P. NO. 2418/2002 (D) (Dr.Kailash Shamrao Shikare & others VERSUS Dr. R.R. Balpande & others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri A. Parchure, counsel for the petitioner. Shri G.R. Agrawal h/f Shri V.V. Bhangde, counsel for the R-1 to 3. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : APRIL 27, 2010 . By this contempt petition, the petitioners allege that the respondents have deliberately disobeyed and flouted the orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 24.07.2002 in Writ Petition No.2418/2002. The order dated 24.07.2002 reads thus---- “Notice before admission returnable within two weeks. Hamdast allowed. However, if the vacancy is filled in, it will be subject to the result of this petition. The same may be made known to the appointee, if any.” By referring to the aforesaid order, it is the contention of the petitioners, that the respondents had filled in the vacancies in the year 2003 and 2004 but, the same 2 were not made known to the persons, who were appointed on the posts. It would be necessary to give some background for considering the issues whether the respondents have committed contempt of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 24.07.2002. The present petitioners are the petitioners in Writ Petition No.2418/2002. Their services as Demonstrators were terminated by the respondents. They had challenged their termination order by filing Writ Petition No.2418/2002 and while issuing notice to the respondents, the Division Bench of this Court had granted the ad-interim relief to the petitioners in the aforesaid terms. It was made clear by the order dated 24.07.2002, which was confirmed by the Division Bench later on, that the vacancy filled in, would be subject to the result of the petition and the said fact may be made known to the appointee, if any. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the contempt petition and the reply filed thereto, it appears that no vacancy was filled on 24.07.2002 and, therefore, it was not necessary to make it known to the appointee, if any. Subsequently, in the years 2003 and 2004, the respondents appointed certain Doctors on the posts of 3 Lecturer and not on the posts of Demonstrator. It is not in dispute that in the appointment orders, it was not made known to the appointees that their appointment was subject to the result of the writ petition. It is, however, necessary to note that the appointments were made by the respondents in the year 2003 and 2004 on the posts of Lecturers and not on the posts of Demonstrators. On a perusal of the affidavit-in- reply, it is clear that the qualifications for the post of Demonstrator and for the post of Lecturer are different. It is not necessary for this Court to consider whether the petitioners also possess the qualifications of the post of Lecturer. It is also brought on record that after a notice was issued by the petitioners to the respondents, the respondents had immediately taken action in regard to the two appointees and issued a corrigendum to them stating therein that their appointments were subject to the result of Writ Petition No.2418/2002. During the pendency of this contempt petition, a corrigendum was issued in regard to the third appointee also. This action, according to the learned counsel for the respondents, was taken by the respondents to be on the safer side as the respondents had not filled in the vacancies on the post of Demonstrators in the year 2003 and 2004 and had filled the posts of Lecturer and the respondents, 4 therefore, had bona fide believed that it was not necessary to make the fact about the pendency of the writ petition known to the appointees of the year 2003 and 2004, as they were appointed on the post of Lecturer and not on the post of Demonstrator. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that the respondents had deliberately flouted the orders passed by this Court on 24.07.2002 and continued by the order dated 27.08.2002. The respondents cannot be said to be guilty of contempt in view of the fact and circumstances recorded hereinabove. The contempt petition is, therefore, disposed of with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE 5 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Contempt Petition No. 15/2010 IN W.P. NO. 2418/2002 (D) (Dr.Kailash Shamrao Shikare & others VERSUS Dr. R.R. Balpande & others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri A. Parchure, counsel for the petitioner. Shri G.R. Agrawal h/f Shri V.V. Bhangde, counsel for the R-1 to 3. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : APRIL 27, 2010 . C.A.N. NO. 41/2010. With the disposal of the contempt petition, the civil application would not survive and the same is, therefore, disposed of. JUDGE APTE