Bombay High Court
Smita Harishchandra Landge vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. ... on 23 November, 2022
Bench: G.S. Patel, Sharmila U. Deshmukh
22-ASCP-311-2022+.DOC
Shephali
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 311 OF 2022
Smita Harishchandra Landge ...Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra, through Education ...Respondents
Department, through its Secretary & Ors
Mr Ajinkya M Udane, for the Petitioner.
Mr Ashutosh Gavnekar,i/b CG Gavnekar, for Respondents Nos. 4 &
5.
Mr GH Keluskar, for Respondent No. 8.
Mr Nikhil Wadikar, with Pradip Zente, i/b Nandu Pawar, for
Respondent No. 10.
Ms SS Bhende, AGP, for the Respondent-State.
CORAM G.S. Patel &
SHEPHALI Sharmila U. Deshmukh, JJ.
SANJAY
MORMARE DATED: 23rd November 2022
Digitally signed
by SHEPHALI
SANJAY
PC:-
MORMARE
Date: 2022.11.24
10:52:32 +0530
1. Contempt is alleged of an order dated 24th February 2021. A
copy of that order is at Exhibit "B" at pages 24 and 25 of the paper
book. It reads thus:
"1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner, learned
counsel for Respondent No.4 and learned AGP for the
Respondent-State.
23rd November 2022
22-ASCP-311-2022+.DOC
2. The subject matter of controversy in the present petition
concerns appointment/absorption of the Petitioner as a
Shikshan Sevak in a vacant post in Education Department
(Primary), Sangli Zilla Parishad or Sangli-Miraj-Kupwad
Municipal Corporation or Vita Municipal Council, Tal.
Vita, District : Sangli. It is not in dispute that on merits of
her case, the Petitioner is entitled to be absorbed and
accommodated as a Shikshan Sevak in a vacant post under
the Zilla Parishads. In fact, the Director of Education
(Primary), Pune Division by addressing a letter to the
Additional Chief Secretary of School Education & Sports
Department, Maharashtra State, Mantralaya, Mumbai
dated 15.07.2019 has required suitable directions for
appointment of the Petitioner as a Shikshan Sevak.
3. On these facts, the petition can be conveniently
disposed of by directing the Respondents to issue
appropriate directions for absorption of the Petitioner in the
school maintained by the concerned Zilla Parishads. The
Court is informed that there are adequate number of
vacancies in that behalf. The Petitioner is a Scheduled
Caste candidate and according to the respective roasters,
there is a scope for engagement of the Petitioner as a
Shikshan Sevak under the respective Zilla Parishads.
4. The petition is accordingly disposed of by directing
the Respondents to accommodate or absorb the Petitioner
as a Shikshan Sevak in any suitable vacant post in the
Education Department (Primary), Sangli Zilla Parishad or
Sangli-Miraj-Kupwad Municipal Corporation or Vita
Municipal Council, Sangli. To enable the Petitioner's
transfer from Zilla Parishad, Alibag to any of these places,
suitable orders shall be issued by Respondent No.4-
Education Ofcer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Raigad-Alibag
within a period of three weeks from today.
5. The petition is disposed of in the above terms."
23rd November 2022
22-ASCP-311-2022+.DOC
2. What this order evidently directs is that the Petitioner was to
be absorbed as Shikshan Sevak "in any suitable vacant post" in the
Education Department (Primary) of the Sangli Zilla Parishad or the
Sangli Miraj Municipal Corporation or with the Municipal Council
Sangli. To enable her transfer to Sangli from the Zilla Parishad
Alibaug in Raigad, district suitable orders were to be issued by the
4th Respondent Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Raigad
at Alibaug.
3. The complaint is that this order has remained without
implementation in all this time. At page 32 is a letter of 5th March
2021 from the Petitioner to the Zilla Parishad Sangli, Respondent
No. 7, pointing out the High Court order. Then, a similar letter was
written on 2nd March 2021 to the Zilla Parishad, Raigad, Alibaug.
On 30th March 2021, the Zilla Parishad Sangli wrote to the Director
of Education (Primary) in Pune pointing out the order and what was
required to be done. On 16th March 2021, the Zilla Parishad Raigad
Alibaug wrote to the Director of Education Pune seeking directions
to implement the Court order. At page 63 (a copy of which is also at
page 48) is a letter from the Director of Education Pune saying that
it would be impossible to implement this order because of
something that had evidently not been noticed in the order and
possibly concealed in the Petition namely that the Petitioner had
never in fact joined at the school in question in Alibaug in Raigad
District. Without her joining that school, no question of relieving
her for the purposes of a transfer to Sangli could ever even arise.
She had not even properly taken up employment as required by the
applicable rules. It appears that the Zilla Parishad Sangli and Raigad
have both done what little was expected of them and have both
23rd November 2022
22-ASCP-311-2022+.DOC
written to Director of Education. It is not as if the Director of
Education has not acted at all. He has pointed out that there is a
failure on the part of the Petitioner to join service in Alibaug.
4. While we disapprove of this approach, and believe it would
have been more appropriate for the Director of Education through
the learned AGP to seek a clarification of this Court, we have seen a
copy of the Writ Petition and we are not able to find from the
Petition a single averment that the Petitioner had in fact reported to
and joined her services at Alibaug. That she was on the
establishment at Alibaug is accepted in paragraph 16 of the Petition
at page 18 where the averment is that the Zilla Parishad at Raigad
Alibaug was "unable to resume her and accordingly inform the letter
dated 18th May 2016". A copy of this letter does not seem to be
annexed.
5. Exhibit 1 to the Affidavit in Reply of the Education Officer of
the Raigad Zilla Parishad at page 57 of the Contempt Petition is the
appointment letter of 9th November 2016 of the Petitioner. There is
also at page 155 of the Writ Petition a communication dated 28th
November 2016 from the Petitioner to the Education Minister
saying that the Raigad Zilla Parishad was unable to absorb her
because of certain proceedings and there was therefore no question
of her being able to report or take up position.
6. On 17th February 2018 there was an intimation (page 59 of
the Contempt Petition) which says that the Petitioner did not in
23rd November 2022
22-ASCP-311-2022+.DOC
November 2016 join her employment at a place of posting at
Shrivardhan. There is simply no answer to this.
7. It is difficult to see how in these circumstances it can be said
that there is contempt committed by any of the Respondents of the
order in question. The action of the Director of Education Pune
may be sub-optimal in the form that it took.
8. These are substantially disputed questions and it is difficult to
say that in these circumstances that is a wilful disobedience of any
judgment, decree, direction or Writ or other process of the Court
within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act.
9. If the Petitioner has any other remedies at this stage, she is at
liberty to pursue those. The Contempt Petition is rejected. There
will be no order as to costs.
(Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J) (G. S. Patel, J)
23rd November 2022
