1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR C.P.NO.265 OF 2010. in WRIT PETITION NO.2120 OF 2003 Suresh s/o Shankarrao Waghmare vs.. S.M.Haste, Joint Director and others. ..................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ........................................................................................................................................ Mr.S.P.Kshirsagar, for the petitioner. Mr.A.M.Deshpande, A.G.P. for Resp.1 & 2. CORAM : R.K.DESHPANDE, J. DATED : MARCH 22, 2011. 1. In W.P.No.2120 of 2003, which is pending in this court, an order was passed on 21/7/2003, which is reproduced below. “Rule expedited. The concerned incumbents who were temporarily promoted as Instructors shall be allowed to work as instructors until new appoints are made from the open market pursuant to the advertisement dated 19/7/2003. However, it will be open to those 2 candidates to apply for the said posts without prejudice to their rights and contentions in this Writ petition. The respondents shall receive their applications and consider their cases in accordance with law and appoint them if they are found suitable and otherwise qualified.” 2. Shri Kshirsagar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that subsequent to the order dated 21/7/2003 passed by this court, the respondents have issued an order appointing the petitioner on the post of Instructor. According to him, as per the order passed by this court, this appointment of the petitioner as Instructor should have been continued until the new appointments are made from the open market pursuant to the advertisement dated 19/7/2003. It is his further submission that till this date new appointments are not made, but on the contrary, the order appointing the petitioner as Instructor was withdrawn by subsequent order dated 10/3/2010 and this was an act of contempt of court on the part of the respondents. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that he had filed Contempt Petition No.112 of 2010 before this court complaining that the order dated 10/3/2010 is contemptuous in nature and this contempt 3 petition was dismissed by this court (Shri Chandiwal, J) by an order dated 25/6/2010. The relevant portion of the said order is reproduced below - “The action complained of dated 10 th March, 2010 and the order referred above have plainly no nexus to each other. They could not have been clubbed as sought to be pointed by the learned counsel. The rigor of Section 20 of Contempt of Courts Act will have prevalence and consequently the contempt petition lacks even on limitation. The order dated 21/07/2003, does not provide a right in the petitioners or the organization to seek the employment or to challenge the change of status, which is pointed by virtue of communication dated 10/3/2010., Petition dismissed.” 4. The petitioner filed Misc.Civil Application (Review) No.925 of 2010 for review of the order passed by this court urging that the provision of Section 20 could not have been invoked as the cause of action arose on 10/3/2010 and immediately petition for contempt was filed. It was his further submission that this court was wrong in holding that there was no nexus between the action complained of dated 10/3/2010 4 and order dated 21 st July, 2003. This review petition was dismissed by this court on 23/11/2010. The said order is reproduced below - “This is an application seeking review of the judgment and order dated 25/6/2010 passed by this court in Contempt Petition No.112 of 2010. The said contempt petition was dismissed on merits. On 29/9/2010 and on 13/10/2010, the learned counsel for the applicant was asked to address this court on the question of maintainability of the review petition in the contempt proceedings. The learned counsel states that there is no such provision for review. However, he seeks permission to withdraw the present review petition with liberty to file fresh contempt petition. In view of above, the applicant is permitted to withdraw the present Misc. Civil Application with liberty as prayed for, if it is permissible, in accordance with law. 5. The petitioner has, therefore, filed this fresh contempt petition which is nothing but in the nature of review application of the judgment and order dated 25 th June, 2010 passed by this court in W.P.No.112 of 2010. The same is not tenable. 5 In view of the fact that the contempt Petition No. 112 of 2010 was dismissed by this court on 25/6/2010 and a review application was dismissed on 23/11/2010, the filing of this petition is nothing but an abuse of the process of law. The same is therefore dismissed. 6. Shri Deshpande, learned Assistant Government Pleader, has invited my attention to the portion of the pleadings in the contempt petition, which reads as under - “However, the Hon’ble Court fails to understand that the cause of contempt starts from 10 th March, 2010 and not from the order passed by this Hon’ble Court on 21/7/2003.” He submits that in terms of Section 2(c)(i) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the aforesaid statement amounts to scandalizing this court or lowering down the image of the court and hence it amounts to criminal contempt of which suo moto cognizance should be taken. In view of the provisions of Section 18 of the Contempt of Courts Act, the proper course would be to place the matter before the Division Bench to consider the question. JUDGE chute