IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CONTEMPT PETITION NO.112 OF 2010 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2045 OF 2006 IN WRIT PETITION NO.273 OF 2006. 1 Subhash Balu Umbre, age 51 years, occu. Service, r/o C/o Panchayat Samiti Akole, taluka Akole, Dist. Ahmednagar and others. .. PETITIONERS. VERSUS 1 Mr. Sanjay Kumar, age major, occu. Service Secretary, Education Department, Government of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai and others. .. RESPONDENTS. ... Shri N.B. Suryawanshi, Advocate for Petitioners. Smt. V.A. Shinde, A.G.P. for respondents. CORAM : S.S. SHINDE,J. 9th September, 2010. PER COURT: 1. This contempt petition is filed alleging disobedience of the order dated 5th May, 2006 passed by the learned Division Bench of this Court in Civil Application No.2045/2006 in Writ Petition No.273 of 2006. In paragraph 3 of the said order, the learned Division Bench observed thus: “3 During the discussion of the two lawyers, we understand that presently applicants are still working with the respondents (Writ Petitioners) as Supervisors and they are conferred pay scale of Rs.5000/- to Rs.8000/-. Out of six applicants, two are already absorbed. Learned Additional Government Pleader Shri Chaudhari prays for time to file reply-affidavit in the application. We grant time. However, we also order, in the meanwhile, that parties shall maintain status quo. At the request of learned advocate Shri N.B. Suryawanshi, it is clarified that in case the respondents (writ petitioners) desire to absorb the present applicants (respondents in writ petition) on the posts of Assistant Project Officer (APO) / Assistant Deputy Education Inspector (ADEI) in the pay scale of Rs.5000/- to Rs.8000/- this status quo shall not operate as bar for such action.” 2. According to the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners herein, the learned Division Bench of this Court by order dated 5th May, 2006 directed the parties to maintain status quo as on 5th May, 2006. The learned Counsel further submitted that in spite of this order, the respondents have advertised the post and are trying to go ahead with the recruitment. The learned Counsel further invited my attention to the affidavit-in-reply filed by one Sunil Baburao Magar, Deputy Director of Education, Pune and more particularly, contentions in para 8 and submitted that the said contention in para 8 are contrary to the para 5 of the affidavit-in-reply filed by one Mr. Bhalchandra Dagajirao Desale, Director of Education, M.S., Pune. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioners when there is direction by this Court to maintain status quo, it is also applicable to the respondents and, therefore, their action to advertise the posts is in disobedience to the order passed by the learned Division Bench of this Court. 3. The learned A.G.P. invited my attention to the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the Director of Education and the Deputy Director of Education. The learned A.G.P. invited my attention to para 5 of the affidavit filed by the Director of Education. In the said para, the Director of Education has stated that there was no any deliberate intention or violation of order of status quo, the said advertisement was issued only to fill up backlog in which 6 posts were kept vacant. It is further stated that though the petitioners are surplus, they are paid salary to the tune of Rs.5000-8000. In para 7, it is stated that though the said advertisement was issued, till the date, no recruitment was made in pursuance to the said advertisement and even the State Government has put ban on the recruitment of the said posts. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has rightly contended about the inconsistent stand taken by the Director of Education and Deputy Director of Education in their affidavits filed before this Court in respect of filling up of number of posts. That is the matter to be considered by the respondents. However, the fact remains that no steps are taken or being taken in pursuance to the advertisement dated 23rd February, 2010 as stated by the respondents in their affidavits. It is not in dispute that even as on today, the petitioners are working as supervisors. 5. In this view of the matter, as on today, I do not think that the respondents have violated the direction / order of the learned Division Bench in its order dated 5th May, 2006 in Civil Application No. 2045/2006 in Writ Petition No.273 of 2006. There is no substance in this contempt petition. Contempt petition is dismissed. Notice discharged. [ S.S. SHINDE ] JUDGE. ... PLK/*