31 cp 162.09.doc 1 srk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 162 OF 2009 Balasaheb Rajaram Chavan ... Petitioner Vs. Maruti Vithoba Sawant (Chairman) & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. Sunil D.Dighe for Petitioner. Mr. G.S.Kulkarni i/b Mr. Sandeep R.Waghmare for Respondent nos.1 & 2. Ms.S.S.Bhide, AGP for Respondent nos. 3 to 5. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATE : 9th September, 2010. P. C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for parties. 2 The Petitioner had filed an Appeal before the School Tribunal contending that even though he was holding the Degree of B.Sc. and B.Ed. he was not being given B.Ed. Scale. The Education Officer pointed out before the School Tribunal that one teacher namely, Bhosle, who was junior to the present Petitioner, was appointed against the open category post on which the Petitioner could have been appointed. However, the School Tribunal dismissed the Appeal holding that he had no jurisdiction. That order was challenged by the Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 62 of 2008. That Petition was disposed of by an order dated 3rd April, 2008. In 31 cp 162.09.doc 2 paragraph 2 of that order, this court upheld the finding of the School Tribunal that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction in view of the provisions of section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977. In view of this, the Petition was straight way liable to be dismissed. However, it appears that some attempt was made to resolve the problem and therefore, in paragraph 1 it was recorded that the counsel for the management had stated that the management had no objection to submit a representation for grant of B.Ed. scale to the Petitioner and the management would do it within a period of two weeks. It appears that the management made a representation and in response to that the Education Officer informed the management by letter dated 3rd June, 2008 that there was no post available for open category in the B.Ed. pay scale, however, the appointment of said Bhosle, who was from the open category, could be cancelled and then a proposal for giving B.Ed. scale to the present Petitioner could be submitted, making it clear that the payment of salary to Bhosale would be responsibility of the management. Learned counsel for the Petitioner informs that above 11 junior persons have been appointed by promotion after the order of the court. 3 It appears that the Writ Petition of the present Petitioner was in­fact dismissed as withdrawn because the order of the School Tribunal rejecting 31 cp 162.09.doc 3 the Appeal for want of jurisdiction was upheld. However, in view of the statements made by the counsel for the parties, the observations were made in paragraph 1 of that order. It appears that representation was made by the management and was also considered but it could not be accepted for the different reasons. The learned counsel for the management rightly points out that if for giving B.Ed scale to the Petitioner, some other person, who is already appointed as such, is to be removed from service, the rights of that person would be affected and therefore he cannot be removed without giving an opportunity of hearing. He contends that for this purpose the Petitioner may challenge the promotions of other persons, including Bhosle, if he claims B.Ed. scale from particular date. In view of this, the learned counsel for the Petitioner makes a statement that the Petitioner shall take appropriate steps for the remedy, as may be permissible under the law including representation to the Education Officer for redressal of his grievance. 4 In view of the above facts and circumstances, I find that no action for Contempt can be taken. Therefore, Contempt Petition stands dismissed with liberty to the Petitioner to take appropriate action as per law. (J. H. BHATIA, J.)