:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4262 OF 1998 Shri Kapase Shashikant Ananta ..Petitioner Vs. Acharyartna Deshbhushan Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and ors. ..Respondents Mr. L.S. Deshmukh i/by Mr. S.S. Pakale for petitioner. Mr. A.A. Kumbhakoni with Mr. A.M. Kulkarni for respondent nos.1 and 2. Mr. A.P. Vanarse, AGP for respondent no.3. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. Date : February 15, 2008. Date : February 15, 2008. Date : February 15, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. This petition arises from the order dated 30/4/1998 passed by the School Tribunal at Kolhapur in Contempt No. 42 of 1996. The operative part of the order reads as under:- "The respondent no.1 and 2 are hereby directed to ascertain by making correspondence with the :2: management of new college Kolhapur as to whether there is a possibility to give full work load to Mr. Chandane who is serving as Part time lecturer in their institute in near future and by getting information of availability of such full time work load to assign to Mr. Chandane then by withdrawing his work load it should be assign to the appellant to consider him on full time basis." 2. It appears that the petitioner had filed Appeal No. 93 of 1993 and the same was allowed by the School Tribunal vide its Judgment and Order dated 22/11/1995. The oral order of termination dated 21/6/1993 was set aside and the appellant was directed to be reinstated as a part time permanent lecturer with backwages. The respondents were further directed to treat him as a full time lecturer as and when such exigency will be arised in the institute in future. By taking support of the second part of the order, the petitioner had represented to the management that he was required to be made permanent and instead of doing so one Mr. Chandane was given appointment in the :3: month of June 1993 when he was not qualified for being appointed as an Assistant Teacher and more so he acquired B.Ed. qualification only in the year 1994. In Contempt No. 42 of 1996 the Tribunal considered all these factors and issued the directions to the management as noted hereinabove. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner as well as respondent nos.1 and 2 state that the order impugned has already been implemented and the management issued an order on 24/3/1999 whereunder the petitioner has been appointed as a full time lecturer with effect from 1/3/1999. There is no dispute that the petitioner has continued as a full time lecturer from the said date and, therefore, nothing further survives in this petition. 4. In the premises, petition is dismissed as infructuous. Rule is discharged. No costs. :4: (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.)