Sayyad Hasnoddin Sayyad ... vs Shri Sourabh Katiyar, Chief ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 14284 Bom

1.cp.237.21                                                                                       1/2


              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

                         Contempt Petition No.237 of 2021
                               Sayyad Hasnoddin Sayyad Riyajoddin
                                                vs.
                                       Shri Sourabh Katiyar
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Office notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders                             Court's or Judge's Orders
or directions and Registrar's orders.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

              Shri R.D. Karode, Advocate for the Petitioner.


                            CORAM            :   S.M. MODAK, J.

DATE : 1st OCTOBER, 2021.

Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner.

02] It is true that as per the order dated 12/10/2012, the learned President of One Member Grievance Committee for Entertaining Complaints of Shikshan Sevak at Nagpur, directed the respondents therein to appoint the present petitioner as an Assistant Teacher with effect from 31/07/2009. While passing that order, the learned President in paragraph 5 has observed that the appointment of the petitioner could be treated from open category.

03] Thereafter, the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher vide appointment order dated 14/01/2013 passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Akola i.e. the present respondent.

04] Nothing happened till passing of the order dated 28//12/2020. The respondent issued that order thereby appointing the present petitioner on a temporary basis for 11 months or up to the date of superannuation, whichever is earlier. This order has been passed on the basis of the observations of the Hon'ble

1.cp.237.21 2/2

Supreme Court in the case of Chairman and Managing Director, F.C.I. & others vs. Jagdish Balaram Bahira & others, in Civil Appeal No.8928/2015. The grievance is, the respondent has wrongly interpreted the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in that judgment and they were wrongly made applicable to the petitioner. The grievance is, the petitioner does not come within the purview of directions issued in that judgment.

04] So, the petitioner is aggrieved, because the appointment letter dated 28/12/2020 was issued contrary to observations made in paragraph 5 of the order dated 12/10/2012 by the learned President of the Grievance Committee. Even, it was made known to the learned Advocate for the petitioner that in a contempt jurisdiction, this Court cannot direct the respondent to withdraw the order dated 28/12/2020. Be that as it may, this Court is inclined to issue notice before admission to the respondent.

05] Hence, issue notice before admission to the respondent, returnable after three weeks.

JUDGE *sandesh