1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3449 OF 2009 Ramdas s/o Haribhau Dalvi, Age : 50 years, Occu.Service, presently working as Superintendent of Prison Textile Industries, c/o office of the Inspector General of Prisons, Central Building, Pune, R/o Pune, District Pune ..PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 2. The Secretary, Home Department (Prisons), Maharashtra State, Mantralaya, Mumbai 3. The Inspector General of Prisons, Maharashtra State, Pune 4. Saiprasad s/o Shrinivas Kasegaonkar, Age : 36 years, Occu. Service, presently working as Textile Foreman, Aurangabad Central Prison, R/o A-4, 2/3, Mayur Park, Jalgaon Road, Harsul, Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad ..RESPONDENTS Mr S.R. Barlinge, Advocate for the petitioner; Mr V.H. Dighe, A.G.P. for respondents no.1 to 3; Mr Mahesh Thorat, Advocate holding for Mr A.S. Sawant for respondent no.4. 2 CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ DATE : 11th September 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT [ PER P.V.HARDAS , J ] 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India impugns the order passed by the Aurangabad Bench of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, dated 14.5.2009 in Contempt Petition No.7 of 2008. 3. We may briefly advert to the facts as are germane for the decision of this petition : The promotion of the petitioner was the subject-matter of challenge before the Aurangabad Bench of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal at the behest of the present respondent no.4 in the filing of Original Application No.1096 of 2005. The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in its order by which the Original Application came to be decided, dated 6.10.2006 has observed at paragraph 16 (iv) and paragraph 17 as under :- 3 "(iv) Filing up of the post of Superintendent, Prison Textile Industries by Govt. order dtd. 8.9.2005, it appears, has some nexus with the proceedings going on in Hon'ble High Court, Bombay in Criminal Writ Petition No.386 of 2004, 721 of 2004 and (PIL) 1094 of 2004 (Rajendra Beedkar, Sunil Shinde, Indian Human Rights Commission vs. State of Maharashtra & ors) as is seen from Noting Section of file bearing No.PRO-0605/429/PK.109/PRS-1. It would, therefore, be inexpedient to unsettle the said position abruptly pending regular arrangement in accordance with rules, on remand. Even otherwise for the sake of balance of convenience it would be unwise to unsettle the existing arrangement abruptly." "(17) In view of the foregoing discussion we direct that the matter shall stand remanded to respondent no.2 for giving a consideration afresh, for taking a decision afresh and for taking further action pursuant to the decision so taken. This shall include taking and notifying decision as respects equivalence of different qualifications vis-a-vis Diploma in Weaving Technology of a recognised institution, such as the Victoria Jubilee Technical Institute, Bombay or the Kala Bhavan Technical Institute, Baroda, causing a fresh D.P.C. 4 exercise to be carried out thereafter and passing/issuing order of promotion afresh pursuant to the recommendation afresh of the D.P.C., by bringing to an end the promotion effected by the impugned order dtd.8.9.2005. All these actions shall be completed, as far as practicable, within a period of four months from receipt of a copy of this order. Till substituted by a fresh arrangement as spelt out above, the present arrangement pursuant to impugned order of 8.9.2005 shall be in the nature of a stop gap, provisional and fortuitous arrangement without conferring any right on respondent no.4." 4. It appears that since the respondent - State Government had not complied with the directions passed by the Aurangabad Bench of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in its aforestated order, a contempt petition came to be filed. Curiously, in the said contempt petition, the petitioner who was respondent no.4 in Original Application No.1096 of 2005, was not made a party. However, an order came to be passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, hereinafter referred to as "MAT" for the sake of brevity, by which the original order i.e. the order passed in Original Application No.1096 of 2005 came to be varied to the prejudice of the present petitioner, who undisputedly was not a party to the contempt petition. 5 5. Mr S.R. Barlinge, learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged before us (i) that no order could be passed to the prejudice of the present petitioner without the present petitioner being joined as a party to the proceedings and (ii) the Court exercising the contempt jurisdiction could not have varied the order passed earlier on merits by the co-ordinate Bench of the MAT. We have also heard learned Counsel for the respondents. 6. Undisputedly, the petitioner was not a party to the contempt petition. The order passed in Original Application No. 1096 of 2005 had not been challenged by filing of writ petition before this Court and consequently that order had attained finality. The aforesaid order could only be varied in accordance with law. However, no application for variation of the original order or the terms of the original order was submitted by the present respondent no.4. The Court exercising contempt jurisdiction would not have varied the earlier order which had attained finality. The contempt jurisdiction is extremely limited and would not confer the jurisdiction of review that too when the present petitioner was not a party to the contempt petition. Learned Counsel for respondent no.4 unequivocally states before us that in the event this Court is inclined to remit the matter back to the MAT for decision on a contempt application, the present 6 respondent no.4 would join the present petitioner as a party to the contempt petition. 7. In the light of the fact that the order passed by the MAT is unsustainable in law, we are inclined to allow this petition. We accordingly allow this petition and quash and set aside the order impugned in the present petition and remit the matter back to the MAT for a decision afresh in accordance with law. We accept the statement made by the learned Counsel for respondent no.4 herein that the petitioner herein would be joined as a respondent to the contempt petition. 8. Rule is thus made absolute on th above terms with no order as to costs. ( A.V.POTDAR ) ( P.V.HARDAS ) JUDGE JUDGE amj/wp3449.09 7