This order disposed of a contempt petition by purging the contempt since the underlying representation was decided, noting that correctness of the order lies outside the scope of contempt proceedings.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
- 1 -
CP 449/16 in WP 3848/16
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CONTEMPT PETITION NO.449/2016
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.3848/2016
Mamta Pandurang Nimje.
...Petitioner..
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & others.
...Respondents...
.....
Shri S.R. Dheple, Advocate for petitioner.
Smt.Vaishali Patil, AGP for respondent nos.1 & 2.
Respondent no.3 served.
.....
CORAM: S.V. GANGAPURWALA &
K.L. WADANE, JJ.
DATE: 08.12.2016
ORDER :
1]We have heard Mr.Dheple, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
2]Learned AGP states that the authority has decided
the representation on 8.7.2016.
3]According to Mr.Dheple, learned counsel for the
petitioner, the same is not in consonance with the
judgment of the Apex Court. The seniority has to be
CP 449/16 in WP 3848/16
counted from the initial date of appointment and not from
the date the petitioner acquires necessary qualification.
4]The said aspect cannot be considered in a contempt
petition. The representation has been decided in a
particular way. If according to the petitioner, the said
order passed by the Education Officer is erroneous, the
petitioner can challenge the same in appropriate
proceedings.
5]Considering that the representation is decided,
though belatedly, the contempt stands purged. The
contempt petition as such is disposed of. No costs.
ndk/ c8121615.doc
Mamta Pandurang Nimje
The State of Maharashtra
S.V. Gangapurwala
K.L. Wadane
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court