1 CP No.391/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO.391 OF 2011 Ranjana Ashruba Chava @ Ranjana Sadashiv Ambad - PETITIONER VERSUS 1) The State of Mah. And Ors. - RESPONDENTS ***** Mr.TG Gaikwad, Advocate for Petitioner; Mr.VH Dighe, APP for Resp.No.1/State. Mr.PP More, Adv. for Resp.No.2 and 3. ----- CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 9th DECEMBER, 2011. PER COURT : 1) Respondent no.3 has caused appearance, filed affidavit in reply with power. 2) Heard. By order dated 15th June, 2011 in Writ Petition No.4006/2011, the Division Bench, by writ of mandamus, directed the authorities of the respondents to decide representation of the petitioner and to consider the same afresh in the light of Government Resolution dated 16th June, 2 CP No.391/2011 2001 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the order. The petitioner was permitted to appear before the authorities with a copy of the order dated 30.6.2011. 3) Pursuant to such order/directions, Respondent no.3 sought clarification from the Ministry of Women & Child Development, as to whether Government Resolution dated 16th June, 2001 is applicable to the appointments of Anganwadi Karyakarti or Anganwadi Sevika. The Government, by its communication dated 12.8.2011 informed that the posts are honorary and said Government Resolution would not be applicable and it was the resolution dated 5th August, 2010, that would be applicable for the appointments of the aforesaid posts. The Government Resolution dated 16th June, 2001 was informed to be applicable to class-A, B,C and D posts for handicapped persons category. Consequently, the respondents have informed that the petitioner is not entitled to 3 CP No.391/2011 the post she has claimed. 4) In the aforementioned scenario, there is apparently delay on the part of the respondents. However, though they tried to explain the delay by urging clarification to the authorities in Mantralaya, however, the respondents cannot be permitted to shirk their responsibility. While disposing of the Contempt Petition, Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 to pay costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) to the petitioner. 5) Contempt Petition disposed of as above. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/