1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 66 OF 2008 Ku. Anjali D/o. Vishwanthrao Mudiraj ....Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra & others ....Respondents. Shri. M.S. Choudhari, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri. S.K. Kadam, AGP for the respondent No. 1. Shri. A.R. Nikam, Advocate for respondent No. 2. CORAM : R.K. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 2nd December, 2009 ORAL ORDER : 1. This petition complains willful disobedience of the judgment and order dated 8.1.2008, passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 809/2007. The statement of learned counsel was recorded on the basis of instructions from the respondent No. 3 in the said writ petition that the necessary orders in respect of appointment of the petitioner would be issued as the petitioner has been selected for the said post. The said statement was accepted as an undertaking to this Court. Shri. Choudhari, however, urged that such appointment order 2 was not issued. However, Shri. A.R. Nikam, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has produced on record the copy of the appointment order dated 19.3.2008, which also contains an acknowledgment said to have been signed by the petitioner, accompanied by report dated 2.4.2008, submitted by the Head Master of the School to the Education Officer regarding joining of the petitioner in service. All these documents placed on record are consolidatedly marked as "X" for identification. 2. Shri. Choudhari, the learned counsel, states that he is unaware of such orders. However, in view of the fact that the orders are placed on record, nothing survives in this petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed. 3. Shri. Choudhari, the learned counsel for the petitioner, further urged that this order has not been promptly complied with by the respondents and they have deliberately delayed the issuance of the order of appointment. Thus, according to him, the conduct of the respondents, right from the beginning is required to be noted. However, in my view, from the order of this Court, it does not appear that there is any time limit prescribed in compliance of the same and therefore, such a contention cannot be accepted. [ R.K. DESHPANDE, J. ] ssc/cp66.08