Mahipalsingh S/O Ramavtarsingh Thakur And Another v. Sant Gadge Baba Amravati University, Through Its Registrar, Dr. Ajay P. Deshmukh

cp333-15.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

CONTEMPT PETITION No. 333 OF 2015 IN WRIT PETITION No.3061 OF 2014 Mahipalsingh s/o Ramavtarsingh Thakur and another. -Vrs.- Sant Gadge Baba Amravati University, through its Registrar, Dr. A.P. Deshmukh.

_______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders.

and Registrar's Orders.

Mr. S.S. Dhengale , counsel for petitioners.

Mr. P.S. Patil, counsel for respondent.

CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND P.N. DESHMUKH , JJ.

DATED : 1 st FEBRUARY, 2016 The petitioner has filed this petition contending therein that the respondent University has committed contempt of the order passed by this court in W.P. No. 3061/2014 passed on 24.2.2015.

Vide the said order this court had directed the respondent University to fill in the post from the project affected persons category in view of the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Rajendra Pandurang Pangare and another Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in 2009(4) Mh.L.J., 961. It is the contention of the petitioner that in the advertisement there is no reservation provided for projected affected persons.

Shri Patil, the learned counsel appearing on behalf

cp333-15.odt of the respondent University, submits that the reservation for projected affected persons would be provided as and when the vacancies are advertised from open category and he submitted that the present posts are to be filled in only from the category of backward classes.

It is not the case of the petitioners that the respondent University is making recruitment contrary to the law laid down by the larger bench of this court in the case of Rajendra Pandurang Pangare (referred supra). In that view of the matter, we do not find that any case is made out for invoking contempt jurisdiction. The contempt petition is, therefore, without substance and as such is dismissed.

JUDGE JUDGE Hirekhan