cp88.10 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CONTEMPT PETITION NO.88 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.980 OF 2000. Dnyaneshwar s/o Rambhau Kagde, age 39 years, Occu. Nil, r/o Bawi, Tq. Kallam, Dist. Osmanabad. .. PETITIONER. VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra and others. .. RESPONDENTS. ... Shri V.P. Latange, Advocate for Petitioner. Shri D.V. Tele, AGP for State. Shri R.V. Ghuge, Advocate for R.Nos.2,5 and 6. ... CORAM : S.S. SHINDE,J. DATE : 15.06.2011. PER COURT: 1. This contempt petition alleges disobedience of the order dated 29th August, 2000 passed by the Division Bench of this Court. The Division Bench of this Court while disposing of the writ petition observed, thus: cp88.10 2 "4. While we do not find any fault with the order of removal issued by the Board, we make it clear that the petitioners applications will have to be listed in the wait list for the post of line men/helpers and as and when there are vacancies for the said posts in future from the open category or against a quota for freedom fighters nominees, the petitioners cases shall be considered and we direct the Board not to appoint any such candidate from outside market unless the petitioners candidature is considered, irrespective of their age as a special case." 2. This Court had issued notices to the respondents in this Contempt Petition. Pursuant to the notice, one Vikas s/o Balwantrao Badhe, working as Chief Engineer of EHV Const.-cum-O & M Zone, Aurangabad has filed the affidavit-in-reply. In para 4 of the affidavit, it is stated that the minimum qualification for the operating and supervisory staff shall preferably be a high second class diploma in mechanical or electrical engineering or a degree from a recognized institute or university. The minimum qualifications for the persons to assist the operating and supervisory staff cp88.10 3 shall be certificate from a recognized Industrial Training Institute in appropriate trade. 3. It is an admitted position that the petitioner does not possess the qualification which is introduced in 2003 for the post for which this Court had given direction for considering the petitioner's claim. The affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.6 categorically states that the case of the petitioner was considered. However, he does not possess the requisite qualification and therefore, the post of helper / lineman cannot be offered to him. However, in para 5 of the affidavit-in-reply, assurance is given that the order dated 23.08.2000 passed by the Division Bench of this Court will be kept in focus and whenever a suitable job opportunity arises, the department will not hesitate to consider the claim of the petitioner. cp88.10 4 4. It appears that the Division Bench has passed the orders as back as in the year 2000. However, the Contempt Petition came to be filed in the month of February, 2010. That apart, if the petitioner does not possess the requisite qualification for the said post, in my opinion, there is no any disobedience, much less, willful disobedience of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court. The directions by the Division Bench of this Court were only to consider the claim of the petitioner and accordingly, his claim was considered and negated since he does not possess the requisite qualification. 5. In view of this, nothing further remains to be considered in the Contempt Petition. The contempt petition stands disposed of. Notices stand discharged. [ S.S. SHINDE ] JUDGE. PLK/*