1 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 385 OF 2008 Mr.Rajendra Laxman Londhe ... Petitioner v/s Sant Tukdoji Maharaj Madhyamik Vidhyalay & ors. ... Respondents Mr.M.L.Patil for the petitioner. Mr.A.I.Patel, A.G.P. for the respondent No.1. Mrs.Anita Agarwal for respondent Nos.2 and 3. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 20TH NOVEMBER, 2009 P.C.: 1. The contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner contending that the respondents have committed contempt of the order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 6.2.2006 passed in Writ Petition No.1832 of 2004. 2. The petitioner claims that he has the qualifications of B.A., B.P.Ed. and was initially appointed with respondent No. 1 as a Hostel Superintendent upto 1.9.2001. It appears that 2 the petitioner was then asked to work as a part-time Teacher. His services were terminated by the respondents as his work was unsatisfactory. It appears that the appellant filed Writ Petition No.2485 of 2002 contending that his termination from service as a Hostel Superintendent was illegal. The Division Bench of this Court, by its order dated 18.7.2003, has held that the petitioner had to exercise his option as to whether he wanted to continue in the post of Shikshan Sevak or as a Hostel Superintendent. Accordingly he had chosen to continue as a Shikshan Sevak and therefore the Court held that he could not challenge the order terminating his services as a Hostel Superintendent. As regards the order terminating him from the post of Shikshan Sevak, the Division Bench directed the petitioner to approach the Tribunal constituted to hear the complaints of Shikshan Sevaks for appropriate reliefs. It appears that the petitioner did approach the School Tribunal by preferring an appeal. That appeal was filed in April, 2008 and since there was delay of 7 years and 150 days’ in presenting it, an application for condoning the delay was filed. It appears that the application was dismissed and hence the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.833 of 2009. That petition was withdrawn by the petitioner on 6.3.2009 with liberty to take appropriate steps in respect of the order dated 3.1.2008 passed by the Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Pune. 3 3. The petitioner, instead of exercising that right, has chosen to approach this Court contending that there is a breach of the order dated 6.2.2006 in Writ Petition No.1832 of 2004. That petition was filed by one Laxman Maruti Jamkar against the communication received by him dated 1.8.2003 by which his services were terminated and the petitioner herein was directed to be appointed as a Shikshan Sevak in his place. This was done, as recorded by the Division Bench of this Court, due to the pressure exerted by the Head of Association of Backward Class Teachers/Non- Teachers Association. The Division Bench, while disposing of the writ petition directed the respondents to consider the petitioner’s case for appointment if there was a vacancy and if eligible for the post of Shikshan Sevak, in accordance with law. That was to be done within eight weeks. 4. It appears that vacancies arose after eight weeks and an advertisement was issued in the newspaper dated 12.7.2006 in which two posts of B.A. B.Ed. (Marathi), one post for B.Sc. B.Ed.(Maths) and three posts of H.S.C. D.Ed. were advertised. Admittedly, the petitioner is not qualified for these posts. His qualification is B.A. B.P.Ed. Therefore, the question of calling the petitioner while filling up vacancies to these posts did not arise. 4 5. In my view, there is no contempt committed by the respondents in not calling the petitioner for filling up the vacancies as advertised since he was not qualified for the posts. 6. Contempt petition rejected. ..... 5