Contempt petition alleging willful disobedience of a court order regarding petitioner teachers' service absorption was disposed of. The court held no willful disobedience occurred as the matter was being considered on merits by the respondent.
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.
726.15cp
1
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
_____________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders |
______________________________________________________ CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 726 OF 2015 IN WRIT PETITION NO.6581/2014
NASREEN RASHID SHAIKH AND ANOTHER VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
Advocate for Petitioners : Mr.Awate U.R. AGP for Respondents/State : Mr.S.P. Sonpawale. Advocate for Respondent 3 : Mr.U.B. Bondar.
CORAM : S.S. SHINDE & V.L. ACHLIYA, JJ. Dated: MARCH 15, 2016
Heard learned learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for respondent No.3.
2 We have carefully perused the order passed by this Court, of which willful disobedience is alleged in this petition and also the letter written by the Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Latur to the petitioners. Upon perusal of the said letter, it appears that, the concerned Officer has taken a decision considering the record and
726.15cp
2
observed that, since approval was not granted by the Education Officer to the services of the petitioners, they cannot be declared surplus and absorbed in some other school. The directions contained in the order, of which disobedience is alleged in this petition, were to consider the cases of the petitioner on its own merits.
3 In that view of the matter, taking into consideration the reply filed by the respondent No.3 and also the contents of the communication addressed to the petitioners by the respondent No.3, we do not think that, there is willful disobedience of the order / directions passed by this Court. Hence, the contempt petition stands disposed of.
(V.L. ACHLIYA, J)
(S.S. SHINDE, J)
kadam/
Nasreen Rashid Shaikh and another
The State of Maharashtra and others
S.S. SHINDE
V.L. ACHLIYA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
