Contempt Petition No. 126 of 2023 · Bombaybench High Court
Case Details
2025:BHC-AUG:13710-DB 1 of 45 CP126.2023IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCONTEMPT PETITION NO. 126 OF 2023 Rashtramata Jijau Sevabhavi Sanstha,35, Gautam Nagar, Gondur Road,Walwadi, District Dhule,Through its President Sanjay Bhavan BhamreAge. 48 years, Occu. Agriculture,R/o. 35, Gautam Nagar, Walwadi Dhule,District Dhule....PetitionerVERSUS1.Mr. Ranjeetsinh Deol,Age. 52 years, Occu. Service asAddl. Chief Secretary, School Educationand Sports Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.2.Mr. Mahesh Palkar,Age. 54 years, Occu. Service asDirector of Education (Primary),Maharashtra State, Pune....Respondents ...Mr. V.D. Sapkal Senior Advocate i/b. N.L. Choudhari, Advocate for the PetitionerMr. Birendra Saraf, Advocate General a/w. Mr. A.B. Girase GP for State...WITHCONTEMPT PETITION NO. 530 OF 2019IN WP/2468/2018Rashtramata Jijau Sevabhavi Sanstha,Rami, Tq. Sindhkhed, district Dhule,Through its PresidentShri Sanjay Bhavan Bhamre,Age. 48 years, Occ. Social Worker,R/o. 38, Gautamnagar, Walwadi,District Nandurbar....PetitionerVERSUS 2 of 45 CP126.20231.The State of Maharashtra,Through Principal Secretary,School Education and Sports Department,Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32.2.Shri. Sunil Chavan,The Director of Education (Primary),Maharashtra State, Pune.3.Shri. Asim Kumar GuptaSecretary Rural Development,Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32.4.Shri. Dattatray Govind JagtapThe Director of Education (Primary),Maharashtra State, Pune....Respondents ...Mr. V.D. Sapkal Senior Advocate i/b. N.L. Choudhari, Advocate for the PetitionerMr. Birendra Saraf, Advocate General a/w. Mr. A.B. Girase GP for State…WITHCONTEMPT PETITION NO. 533 OF 2019IN WP/3390/2018Dr. Babasaheb R. Ambedkar Seva Bhavi Sanstha DhuleThrough its Vice-PresidentShri. Pravin Bhavan Bhamre,Age. 25 years, Occu. Social Worker,R/o. Gautamnagar, Walwadi,District Nandurbar....PetitionerVERSUS1.The State of Maharashtra,Through Principal Secretary,School Education and Sports Department,Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32.2.Shri. Sunil Chavan,The Director of Education (Primary),Maharashtra State, Pune.
Legal Reasoning
26 of 45 CP126.2023which are placed on record. Pursuant to the order passed by this Courtthe Director of Education (Primary) has conducted the detail hearingand upon going through the record, he has come to the conclusion thatthe claim of the petitioners does not appear to be genuine. Accordingly,the order passed by this Court on 11.03.2019, has been complied bythe respondent authorities by passing these orders.15.Admittedly, there is a delay in complying the order since theDirector of Education (Primary) was expected to conduct and concludethe enquiry within three months from the order dated 11.03.2019 andthe order has been passed much beyond the period prescribed whichwas directed by this Court. However, the explanation for delay in intaking decision has been given which appears to be genuine.16.According to the Director of Education, there were a largenumber of candidates, requiring verification of documents, whichconsumed considerable time. We are satisfied with the justification ofdelay, given by the Director of Education (Primary). Therefore, in viewof the compliance of order passed by this Court on 11.03.2019, nothingremains to be adjudicated in the contempt petition nos. 530/2019,533/2019, 539/2019. 17.So far as contempt petition no. 126/2023 is concerned, theorder passed by this Court in Writ Petition Nos. 4944/2022,4945/2022, 4966/2022, is the subject matter of the contempt petition, 27 of 45 CP126.2023which reads thus : “1. All these Petitioners are identically placed.2. We have considered the submissions of the learnedAdvocate for the Petitioners and the learned Counselrepresenting the respective Zilla Parishads and thelearned Chief Government Pleader on behalf ofRespondent Nos.1 to 7, in all these matters.3. On 02.08.2022, we had passed the following order:-“1. The petitioners have put forth prayer Clause 'B' asunder :-(B) By issuing writ of mandamus or any otherappropriate writ, order or directions, the respondentsbe directed to absorb the petitioners in any otherSchool run by Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon i.e respondentNo.8 in view of the report dated 29th November, 2021submitted by Out Ward Clerk and in view ofGovernment Resolution dated 15th September, 2010 aswell as orders passed by this Hon’ble Court in WritPetition No.10393 of 2017, 10417 of 2017, 11889 of2017, 2434 of 2018, 2468 of 2018, 3390 of 2018.2. Issue notice to the respondents, returnable on23/08/2022. The learned Government Pleader waivesservice of notice on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 7.The learned Advocate Mr. M. S. Sonwane waivesservice of notice on behalf of respondent No.8 in WPNo.4944 of 2022. The learned Advocate Mr. N. N.Desale waives service of notice on behalf of respondentNo.8 in WP No.4945 of 2022. The learned Advocate 28 of 45 CP126.2023Ms. Vaishali S. Choudhari waives service of notice onbehalf of respondent No.8 in WP No.4946 of 2022.”4. The learned Advocate for the Petitioners has drawnour attention to the order dated 11.03.2019, passed bythis Court in Writ Petition No. 2434 of 2018, filed byDr. Babasaheb R. Ambedkar Seva Bhavi Sanstha, Dhuleand others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and othersand connected matters. More specifically, our attentionis drawn to Paragraph Nos.6 to 11, which read asunder:-“6. Considering the ground raised by the respondents,it will be appropriate for the Director of Education(Primary) Pune to conduct an enquiry with regard tothe genuineness of the documents placed by thepetitioner on record. The Director of Education is aHigher and responsible officer. The Director ofEducation (Primary) shall consider his record so alsothe documents that may be produced by the petitionersbefore him and shall take decision about thegenuineness of the documents placed by thepetitioners and as to whether the Director of Educationhad really granted approvals to the Units as contendedby the petitioners and so also approved the names ofthe teachers working therein, as it is submitted that allthese orders and approvals are prior to 1st March,2009.7. Depending upon the decision that would be taken bythe Director of Education (Primary) after conductingenquiry regarding genuineness of the documents 29 of 45 CP126.2023placed before it, the parties make take further stepsaccordingly.8. Needless to state, if the Director of Education(Primary) arises at the conclusion that the documentsproduced by the petitioners are genuine and that officeof the Director of Education has granted approval tothe Units and the petitioners, then the Director ofEducation and the authorities may take further steps ascontemplated in the Government Resolution dated15th September,2010.9. If the Director of Education (Primary) recordsconclusion that the documents produced by thepetitioners are not genuine one, then the Director ofEducation (Primary) is also entitled to take furthersteps against the erring persons.10. Writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. Nocosts.11. The Director of Education (Primary), if it ispossible, may conduct enquiry and conclude hisfinding expeditiously, preferably within three months.”5. The communication by the Deputy Director ofEducation, Nashik Division addressed to the JointDirector / Respondent No.3 herein, is pointed out. It isobvious that the enquiry and the verification exercisehas been completed.6. The learned Government Pleader submits that if this 30 of 45 CP126.2023Court grants a particular time frame, further stepswould be taken as contemplated under theGovernment Resolution dated 15.09.2010, as set out inParagraph Nos.7 and 8 of the order of this Court dated11.03.2019, reproduced above. The action pursuant tothe said enquiry would be initiated.7. The learned Advocate for the Petitioners submitsthat the Petitioners would be satisfied if this Courtgrants a time frame for the Respondents / StateAuthorities to initiate steps in pursuance to the enquriyreports, within a particular time frame.8. In view of the above, these Petitions are disposedoff.9. The Director of Education (Primary) would proceedto take action, which shall be initiated within three(03) weeks in the light of the enquiry reports and thesame shall be completed expeditiously and preferably,within six (06) weeks thereafter.”18.From the above order, it is evident that the order passed inWrit Petition Nos. 4944/2022 and connected writ petitions, are based onthe order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 2434/2018 dated11.03.2019, along with connected writ petitions, wherein directions aregiven by this Court to the Director of Education (Primary) to conduct theenquiry regarding genuineness of documents placed before it andthereafter, take further steps after coming to the conclusion about thegenuineness of the documents. 31 of 45 CP126.202319.In furtherance of the order dated 11.03.2019, passed by thisCourt, when the information was called, from the Deputy Director ofEducation, Nasik, regarding the petitioners claims a report was submittedon 29.11.2021. Since it was claimed by the petitioners that no furthersteps were taken by the Director of Education (Primary), in furtherance ofreport submitted by the Deputy Director, the writ petitions came to befiled with a prayer to take the decision on the basis of the report that issubmitted by the Deputy Director of Education, Nasik, for the absorptionof special teachers in view of government resolution dated 15.09.2010.20.Considering that already steps were being taken for taking adecision about the genuineness of claim of petitioners pursuant to whichthe information was made available to the government, this Court haddirected the Director of Education (Primary), to proceed to take action inthe light of the enquiry report dated 29.11.2021.21.Upon perusal of the enquiry report which is relied upon bythe petitioners the first thing that strikes is that it is addressed to theProject Director Maharashtra Primary Education Council, Mumbai. It isstated in the report that the Deputy Director of Education, Nasik wasalready in receipt of the respective reports in respect of the petitionersfrom the Education Officer (Primary). The information in respect ofpetitioners from the Nasik region was made available by the EducationOfficer (Primary) viz. Zilla Parishad, Dhule and Jalgaon. According to the 32 of 45 CP126.2023inspection report, the information about the petitioners was availablewith the respective Education Officers. The documents were attached tothe report submitted by the Deputy Director to Education.22.When the Director of Education (Primary) conducted personalhearing calling upon the respective parties to produce the originaldocuments. During the hearing the following findings are recorded by theDirector of Education :(i)As per the report submitted by the Education Officer(Primary), Zilla Parishad, Nandurbar, vide outward no.609/2023 dated 01.09.2023, the entries in respect of unitapproval of 23 special teachers could not be found in theinward register dated 04.09.2008 to 21.09.2008 and outwardregister dated 30.07.2008 to 05.09.2008. (ii)A report is submitted by the respective Headmaster ofthe school, to the Education Officer (Primary) that none of theunits were started and the teachers were not working in thesaid schools.(iii)Similar report is submitted by the Education Officer(Primary), Zilla Parishad, Dhule, informing that the record inrespect of inward outward register has been misplaced and thecomplaint to that effect has been registered in the Police Stationon 01.09.2023, through the e-mail. (iv)It is stated that the respective head of the schoolswhere the petitioners claim to be appointed have submitted thereport that none of the teachers have been appointed or have 33 of 45 CP126.2023ever worked in the said schools. (v)In the report which was called upon from the DeputyDirector, Nasik, is concerned, it is stated that no proposals areforwarded in respect of the special teachers to the Director ofEducation, neither a proposal for starting any handicap unit,nor any recommendation of such proposal, is made withreference to communication dated 05.01.2009, where by thehandicap unit is claimed to be sanctioned by the Director ofEducation (Primary), no such communication has ever receivedby the office of the Deputy Director, Nashik, the inward Registeris produced in support of the same.(vii)Referring to the approval letter dated 09.01.2009with outward no. 550, and communication dated 22.01.2009with outward no. 1388 in respect of 387 special teachers, it isstated that the Deputy Director of Education Nasik has neverreceived any such proposals either from Education Officer(Primary) or Management of the schools, wherein thepetitioners claimed to be appointed.(viii)The original documents in respect of whichphotocopies have placed on record is not available with any ofthe authorities, hence, it is not worth placing reliance.(ix)As regards the record which was available with theDeputy Director of Education (Primary), it is observed that theupon verification of the inward register the unit approvalorders, the proposals for grant of unit approval, which arereferred in the unit approval orders is not available in the officeof Director of Education (Primary) for the period of 05.01.2009 34 of 45 CP126.2023to 15.01.2009. In view of the aforementioned findings recorded, the abovedecision is taken by the Director of Education (Primary), vide order dated04.09.2023, holding that unit approval and individual approval orders donot appear to be genuine. So far as the report dated 29.11.2021, of the Deputy Director,Nasik, is concerned it is held that the report is prepared from thephotocopies, without verification of the original record. Therefore, itcannot be relied upon. As a result, the prayer of the petitioners, forabsorption has been rejected.23.Though this order was communicated to the petitioners, thepetitioners have disputed decision of the Director of Education on theground that it is not based on the report dated 29.11.2021 as directed bythis Court and the petitioners have filed an affidavit with the documentsof unit approval as well as individual approval obtained under Right toInformation Act. In view of the affidavit of the petitioners, this Court haddirected the State Government to take decision in view of the reportdated 29.11.2021. Order dated 11.10.2023, reads thus :“The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks directionto the respondent/authorities to act upon the reportdated 29.11.2021 submitted by the Joint Director ofEducation, Nashik to the Project Director, MaharashtraPrathamic Shikshan Parishad. 35 of 45 CP126.20232.The concerned authorities are expected to actupon the report dated 29.11.2021. 3. Stand over to 30th November, 2023.”24.Pursuant to the above order dated 11.10.2023, therespondent no. 1, called reports from Education Officer, Zilla Parishad,Dhule, and Nandurbar, along with report of Deputy Director of Educationdated 29.11.2021, and decision taken by Director of Education dated04.09.2023. After scrutinizing report as well as the record, the respondentno. 1 has passed an order on 23.11.2023 holding that no record isavailable in respect of the special teachers in Nandurbar District. Neitheroriginal record in respect of individual approval and unit approval isavailable with the the Education Department.25.The record of Dhule District is also not available for whichthe police complaint is registered. It is observed that the report submittedby the Deputy Director of Education, Nasik, on 29.11.2021 is submittedwithout verifying the original record, hence, it is not worth consideration.In view of the unavailability of original record, of the copies suppliedalong with the report dated 29.11.2021, the respondent no. 1 has heldthat the report is prepared without verification of the original record. As aresult, the prayer of the petitioners for absorption has been rejected videorder dated 23.11.2023 by respondent no. 1. 36 of 45 CP126.202327.In view of decision taken by respondent no. 2 dated04.09.2023, as directed by this Court vide order dated 25.08.2022, in thelight of enquiry report dated 29.11.2021, we do not find that there is anycontempt of the order passed by this Court. In fact during the pendencyof the contempt proceedings even the orders passed by this Court on11.10.2023 have also been complied by respondent no. 1 by passing anorder on 23.11.2023.28.It is claimed by the petitioners that the respondents havecommitted the wilful and deliberate contempt of the orders passed by thisCourt. Civil contempt is defined under Section 2 (b) of the Contempt ofCourt Act, which reads thus :"2 (b)"civil contempt" means wilful disobedience toany judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or otherprocess of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking givento a court ;" The definition of Civil contempt itself makes it clear that therehas to be deliberate and wilful disobedience of the judgment, decree,direction or order of the Court for bringing an action under the contemptproceedings. Unless the disobedience is wilful and deliberate, cognizanceof contempt cannot be taken. There has to be an intention to disobey theorders of the Court. Contempt of Court involves action to undermine theCourts authority and dignity. 37 of 45 CP126.202329.It would be apposite to refer the observations made by theHon’ble Supreme Court in case of Rama Narang Versus Ramesh Narangand others, reported in AIR 2021 SC 721, more precisely in paragraphnos. 73 to 75 which reads thus :“73. Apart from that, for bringing an action for civilcontempt, the Petitioner has to satisfy the court thatthere has been a wilful disobedience of any judgment,decree, direction, order, writ or other process of theCourt. It will be relevant to refer to paragraph (9) of thejudgment of this Court in Niaz Mohammad and Ors. v.State of Haryana and Ors. MANU/SC/0063/1995 :(1994) 6 SCC 332:9. Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') defines "civilcontempt" to mean "wilful disobedience to anyjudgment, decree, direction, order, writ or otherprocess of a court ...". Where the contempt consistsin failure to comply with or carry out an order of acourt made in favour of a party, it is a civilcontempt. The person or persons in whose favoursuch order or direction has been made can move thecourt for initiating proceeding for contempt againstthe alleged contemner, with a view to enforce theright flowing from the order or direction inquestion. But such a proceeding is not like anexecution proceeding under Code of CivilProcedure. The party in whose favour an order hasbeen passed, is entitled to the benefit of such order.The court while considering the issue as to whether 38 of 45 CP126.2023the alleged contemner should be punished for nothaving complied with and carried out the directionof the court, has to take into consideration all factsand circumstances of a particular case. That is whythe framers of the Act while defining civil contempt,have said that it must be wilful disobedience to anyjudgment, decree, direction, order, writ or otherprocess of a court. Before a contemner is punishedfor non-compliance of the direction of a court, thecourt must not only be satisfied about thedisobedience of any judgment, decree, direction orwrit but should also be satisfied that suchdisobedience was wilful and intentional. The civilcourt while executing a decree against thejudgment-debtor is not concerned and botheredwhether the disobedience to any judgment, ordecree, was wilful. Once a decree has been passed itis the duty of the court to execute the decreewhatever may be consequence thereof. But whileexamining the grievance of the person who hasinvoked the jurisdiction of the court to initiate theproceeding for contempt for disobedience of itsorder, before any such contemner is held guilty andpunished, the court has to record a finding thatsuch disobedience was wilful and intentional. Iffrom the circumstances of a particular case, broughtto the notice of the court, the court is satisfied thatalthough there has been a disobedience but suchdisobedience is the result of some compellingcircumstances under which it was not possible for 39 of 45 CP126.2023the contemner to comply with the order, the courtmay not punish the alleged contemner.It can thus be seen, that this Court has held, that thecontempt proceeding is not like an execution proceedingunder the Code of Civil Procedure. It has been held, thatthough the parties in whose favour, an order has beenpassed, is entitled to the benefits of such order, but theCourt while considering the issue as to whether thealleged contemnor should be punished for not havingcomplied with and carried out the directions of theCourt, has to take into consideration all facts andcircumstances of a particular case. It has been held, thatis why the framers of the Act while defining civilcontempt, have said that it must be wilful disobedienceof any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or otherprocess of the Court. It has been held, that beforepunishing the contemnor for non-compliance of thedecision of the Court, the Court must not only besatisfied about the disobedience of any judgment,decree, direction, writ or other process but should alsobe satisfied that such disobedience was wilful andintentional. Though, the civil court while executing adecree against the judgment-debtor is not concernedand bothered as to whether the disobedience to anyjudgment or decree was wilful and once the decree hadbeen passed, it was the duty of the court to execute thedecree, whatever may be the consequences thereof. In acontempt proceeding before a contemnor is held guiltyand punished, the Court has to record a finding, thatsuch disobedience was wilful and intentional. It has 40 of 45 CP126.2023been held, that if from the circumstances of a particularcase, though the Court is satisfied that there has been adisobedience but such disobedience is the result of somecompelling circumstances, under which it is not possiblefor the contemnor to comply with the same, the Courtmay not punish the alleged contemnor.74. It will also be apposite to refer to the followingobservations of this Court in Kanwar Singh Saini v. HighCourt of Delhi MANU/SC/1111/2011 : (2012) 4 SCC307, taking a similar view:30. In an appropriate case where exceptionalcircumstances exist, the court may also resort to theprovisions applicable in case of civil contempt, incase of violation /breach of undertaking/judgment/order or decree. However, before passing any finalorder on such application, the court must satisfyitself that there is violation of such judgment,decree, direction or order and such disobedience iswilful and intentional. Though in a case ofexecution of a decree, the executing court may notbe bothered whether the disobedience of the decreeis wilful or not and the court is bound to execute adecree whatever may be the consequence thereof.In a contempt proceeding, the alleged contemnormay satisfy the court that disobedience has beenunder some compelling circumstances, and in thatsituation, no punishment can be awarded to him.[See Niaz Mohammad v. State of Haryana[ MANU/SC/0063/1995 : (1994) 6 SCC 332], Bankof Baroda v. Sadruddin Hasan Daya [ 41 of 45 CP126.2023MANU/SC/1031/2003 : (2004) 1 SCC 360 : AIR2004 SC 942] and Rama Narang v. Ramesh Narang[ MANU/SC/1960/2006 : (2006) 11 SCC 114 : AIR2006 SC 1883].] Thus, for violation of a judgmentor decree provisions of the criminal contempt arenot attracted.75. It will also be appropriate to refer to the furtherobservations made by this Court in para (38) of the saidjudgment:38. The contempt proceedings being quasi-criminalin nature, the standard of proof required is in thesame manner as in other criminal cases. Thealleged contemnor is entitled to the protection ofall safeguards/rights which are provided in thecriminal jurisprudence, including the benefit ofdoubt. There must be a clear-cut case of obstructionof administration of justice by a party intentionallyto bring the matter within the ambit of the saidprovision. The case should not rest only onsurmises and conjectures. In DebabrataBandhopadhyaya v. State of W.B. [MANU/SC/0366/1968 : AIR 1969 SC 189 : 1969Cri LJ 401], this Court observed as under: (AIR p.193, para 9)9. A question whether there is contempt of court ornot is a serious one. The court is both the accuseras well as the judge of the accusation. It behovesthe court to act with as great circumspection aspossible making all allowances for errors ofjudgment and difficulties arising from inveterate 42 of 45 CP126.2023practices in courts and tribunals. It is only when aclear case of contumacious conduct not explainableotherwise, arises that the contemnor must bepunished. ... Punishment under the law ofcontempt is called for when the lapse is deliberateand in disregard of one's duty and in defiance ofauthority. To take action in an unclear case is tomake the law of contempt do duty for othermeasures and is not to be encouraged. (emphasis added)This Court has observed, that the contempt proceedingsare quasi-criminal in nature and the standard of proofrequired is in the same manner as in the other criminalcases. The alleged contemnor is entitled to theprotection of all safeguards/rights which are provided inthe criminal jurisprudence, including the benefit ofdoubt. There must be a clear-cut case of obstruction ofadministration of justice by a party intentionally, tobring the matter within the ambit of the said provision.The Court has also referred to the observations made bythis Court in the case of Debabrata Bandopadbyay andOrs. v. State of West Bengal and Anr.MANU/SC/0366/1968 : AIR 1969 SC 189, wherein itwas observed, that punishment under the law ofcontempt is called for when the lapse is deliberate andin disregard of one's duty and in defiance of authority.”30.In view of the aforementioned legal position that emergesfrom the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is that before thecontemnor is held guilty and punished, the Court has to record a finding 43 of 45 CP126.2023that such disobedience is wilful and deliberate. In the present case as hasbeen observed herein above, the state authorities have taken steps infurtherance of compliance of order and also complied the orders passedby this Court. Therefore, in our opinion, there is no deliberate and wilfuldisobedience of the orders passed by this Court.31.As can be seen from the order dated 25.08.2022, this Court haddirected to the Director of Education (Primary) to take a decision in thelight of the report submitted by the Deputy Direction of Education dated29.11.2021. This Court has not expressed that the report is binding onthe Director of Education. Since this Court itself has passed order on11.03.2019, directing the Director of Education to take decision afterverification of documents. While taking decision as directed, it transpiredthat the documents are not genuine. The respondent no. 2 has takenappropriate decision as directed by this Court on 25.08.2022.32.During the course of hearing, learned Advocate General hasbrought to our notice about the observations made against the DeputyDirector of Education, Nasik, about his report dated 29.11.2022, whichwas prepared without verifying the original records. Thereafter, we havecalled upon the State to file an affidavit about the steps taken against theerring officer, by the State Government. In response thereto therespondent nos. 1 and 2 have filed an affidavit demonstrating the steps 44 of 45 CP126.2023taken against the then Deputy Director of Education, Nasik, namely Shri.Nitin Upasne. A proposal was moved seeking permission to initiatedepartmental enquiry against the delinquent officer and the proposal wasforwarded on 24.07.2023. Further exchange of communication betweenthe state authorities is also placed on record. It is further assured thatdepartmental enquiry will be completed as per the procedure prescribedin the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, afterreceipt of necessary permission from the general administrationdepartment.33.In view of the decision dated 04.09.2023, taken by theDirector of Education (Primary) as directed by this Court in the lightof enquiry report dated 29.11.2021, we do not find that there is anycontempt of the orders passed by this Court. Though the petitionershave disputed the decision taken by respondent nos. 1 and 2, aboutgenuineness of documents produced by the petitioners, andunavailability of the record with the concerned office, the disputedquestion cannot be gone into by this Court in its contemptjurisdiction. If at all the petitioners want to dispute findings givenabout the genuineness of the documents and challenge the decisionsdated 04.09.2023 and 29.11.2023, they have remedy of filingappropriate proceedings. We do not find any substance in thecontempt petitions. 45 of 45 CP126.202334.In view of the compliance of the order passed by this Court,all contempt petitions stands dismissed.(MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.) (NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.)spc
Arguments
3 of 45 CP126.20233.Shri. Asim Kumar GuptaSecretary Rural Development,Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32.4.Shri. Dattatray Govind JagtapThe Director of Education (Primary),Maharashtra State, Pune....Respondents ...Mr. V.D. Sapkal Senior Advocate i/b. N.L. Choudhari, Advocate for the PetitionerMr. Birendra Saraf, Advocate General a/w. Mr. A.B. Girase GP for State…WITHCONTEMPT PETITION NO. 539 OF 2019IN WP/2434/2018Dr. Babasaheb R. Ambedkar Seva Bhavi Sanstha DhuleThrough its Vice-PresidentShri. Pravin Bhavan Bhamre,Age. 25 years, Occu. Social Worker,R/o. Gautamnagar, Walwadi,District Nandurbar....PetitionerVERSUS1.The State of Maharashtra,Through Principal Secretary,School Education and Sports Department,Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32.2.Shri. Sunil Chavan,The Director of Education (Primary),Maharashtra State, Pune.3.Shri. Asim Kumar GuptaSecretary Rural Development,Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32.4.Shri. Dattatray Govind JagtapThe Director of Education (Primary),Maharashtra State, Pune....Respondents ... 4 of 45 CP126.2023Mr. V.D. Sapkal Senior Advocate i/b. N.L. Choudhari, Advocate for the PetitionerMr. Birendra Saraf, Advocate General a/w. Mr. A.B. Girase GP for State… CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI & MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ.Reserved on :28th APRIL 2025Pronounced on : 08th May, 2025Judgment [Per : Manjusha Deshpande, J.] :-1.A common grievance is raised in these Contempt Petitionsthat, though orders have been passed by this Court on 11.03.2019 and25.08.2022 in the respective writ petitions directing the Director ofEducation (Primary) to proceed to take decision in respect ofabsorption of the petitioners in any other Zilla Parishad Schools, ascontemplated in government resolution dated 15.09.2010, and thoughby order dated 28.08.2022, the Director of Education (Primary) wasdirected to take decision and in the light of report dated 29.11.2021submitted by Deputy Director of Education, Nasik, no steps are taken infurtherance of these orders, therefore, respondents have committedcontempt of the orders passed by this Court.2.The common grievance of the petitioners in the respectivewrit petitions, was that they were eligible and qualified to be appointedas special teachers in the handicap units which were sanctioned to theprivate schools under the scheme introduced by the CentralGovernment i.e. the Central Handicap Integrated Scheme. The 5 of 45 CP126.2023petitioners were appointed and they have discharged their duties in therespective schools. All of a sudden, the government has closed downthe scheme, under which the petitioners were working.4.A policy decision was also taken to accommodate the specialteachers appointed under the scheme. Accordingly, a governmentresolution has been issued on 15.09.2010. However, the petitionerswere not absorbed as per the policy decision taken by the governmentvide Government Resolution dated 15.09.2010. Common order cameto be passed in Writ Petition No. 4944/2022 with Writ Petition No.4945/2022 and Writ Petition No. 4946/2022, directing the Director ofEducation (Primary), to proceed to take action in the light of enquiryreport, and further directing to complete the exercise preferably withina period of six weeks. Since there was no compliance of the order, thepetitioners in Contempt Petition No. 126/2023 have approached thisCourt alleging that the respondent /State authorities have flouted theorders of this Court. 5.While passing the order in Writ Petition No. 4944/2022 withconnected Writ Petitions this Court has referred to the earlier orderdated 11.03.2019, passed in Writ Petition No. 2434/2018 and otherconnected Writ Petitions, wherein this Court has directed the Directorof Education (Primary), to conduct an enquiry with regard; to thegenuineness of the documents placed by the petitioners on record, to 6 of 45 CP126.2023verify whether the Director of Education has actually granted theapproval to the units where the petitioners were appointed. It wasfurther directed that upon conclusion of enquiry the Director shouldtake further steps depending upon the outcome of verification.6.Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Sapkal, appearing for thepetitioners has made following submissions :i.The petitioners had approached this Court byfiling Writ Petition No. 4944/2022 and connected WritPetitions seeking direction to the respondent to absorbthe petitioners in any other schools run by Zilla Parishadin view of report dated 29.10.2021 submitted by theoutward clerk; in light of the government resolutiondated 15.09.2010 as well as the orders passed by thisCourt in Writ Petition No. 10393/2007 and otherconnected group of Writ Petitions.ii.This Court vide judgment and order dated25.10.2022 had directed the Director of Education(Primary) to proceed to take action in the light of theenquiry report. The above exercise was to be completedwithin a period of six weeks.iii.In view of the above order dated 25.08.2022,the petitioners filed representation to take necessarysteps in furtherance of the orders passed by this Court. iv.In view of the representation made, theDirector of Education (Primary) informed thepetitioners/ Management to submit written statement 7 of 45 CP126.2023before November 2022, so as to enable him to submit areport to government in the light of report submitted bythe Deputy Director of Education, Nasik, dated29.11.2021.v.The petitioners have submitted their say on15.11.2022, the Director of Education (Primary),prepared his report and submitted to respondent no. 1 /Principal Secretary for necessary action on 09.01.2023.Though the report is submitted by the Director ofEducation (Primary) on 09.01.2023, respondent no. 1has not taken any decision on the said report, thereby,committed contempt of the orders passed by this Court.vi.Relying on paragraph no. 5.3 of the reportdated 09.01.2023, it is contended that in fact theDirector of Education has forwarded his report torespondent no. 1 with positive recommendations.However, contrary to his own findings recorded in thefact finding report, dated 09.01.2023 submitted to thegovernment, respondent no. 2 has taken decision on04.09.2023, holding that prayer of petitioners in WritPetition No. 4944/2022, 4945/2022 and 4946/2022 fortheir absorption cannot be considered and the requestwas accordingly rejected.vii.The conflicting stand taken by respondent no. 2in his report dated 09.01.2023 and decision taken on04.09.2023 cannot be reconciled. The stand ofrespondent no. 2 in both the communications is contraryto each other. 8 of 45 CP126.2023viii.When the petitioners have pointed out theconflicting stand taken by respondent no. 2, this Courtvide order dated 11.10.2023 had directed the respondentauthority to act upon report dated 29.11.2021 submittedby the Joint Director of Education, Nasik, to ProjectDirector Maharashtra Prathmik Shikshan Parishad.ix.In order to deny the legal and valid claim ofthe petitioners, though there is a positive report from theDeputy Director of Education Nasik Division, Nasik,dated 29.11.2023, the Director of Education (Primary)has taken a stand contrary to the said report. It isobserved by Director of Education (Primary) that onverification of documents of the petitioners regardingtheir individual approvals and unit sanction orders, itwas found that original documents as well as theirentries in inward outward registers were not available.Therefore, it was held that the petitioners havecommitted fraud and forgery in order to obtain the orderof absorption. x.It is contended by the learned Senior AdvocateShri. Sapkal, that the ground on which the claim of thepetitioners have been rejected is totally baseless for thereason that the petitioners had produced the copies inrespect of unit sanction as well as individual approvalobtained from the information Officer of the ZillaParishad, Nandurbar and Dhule as well as DeputyDirector of Education, Nasik. The petitioner have alsoattached those documents along with the rejoinder filedby them. It is urged that merely with a view to frustrate 9 of 45 CP126.2023the orders passed by this Court and deny the legitimateclaim of the petitioners such a stand is taken by therespondents/authorities.xi.In fact during the pendency of the contemptpetition, this Court vide order dated 03.10.2023 haddirected respondent no. 2 to remain present before thisCourt with entire record and the enquiry report. TheCourt itself has verified the documents on 10.10.2023,and thereafter, discharged the presence of respondent no.2. On this background, the order dated 11.10.2023 waspassed directing the concerned authorities to act uponreport dated 29.11.2021.xii.It is contended that the respondents/authorities are bent upon to disregard the orders passedby this Court which can be gathered from the fact thatthough this Court has passed an order on 11.10.2023,directing to act upon the enquiry report dated29.11.2021, yet respondent no. 1 has passed an order on23.11.2023, rejecting the claim of the petitioners holdingthat the enquiry report dated 29.11.2021 is not properand reliable, since it is prepared without verifying theoriginal record. This conduct of the respondent is nothingshort of contempt and disrespectful to the orders of thisCourt. Hence, respondent nos. 1 and 2 are liable to bepunished under the provisions of contempt of Courts act.xiii.Learned Senior Advocate submitted that it isunfortunate that though this Court has directed therespondents twice to implement the enquiry report dated 10 of 45 CP126.202329.11.2021, yet the respondents without complying withthe order have audacity to pass an order which iscontrary to the report submitted by the Deputy Directorof Education.xiv.Shri. Sapkal, learned Senior Advocate hasdrawn our attention to the averments made by thepetitioners in the affidavit-in-reply to the rejoinder filedby respondent no. 1. In the reply affidavit, it is statedthat for considering eligibility for the absorption of theteachers, the government has constituted a committeeheaded by Director of Education (Primary) - ShriDattatraya Jagtap on 11.02.2021, while constituting thesaid Committee specific reference was made to the orderspassed by this Court in Writ Petition Nos. 10393/2017,10417/2017, 11889/2017, 2434/2018. The Committeewas directed to submit report after verification of thedocuments of the petitioners within seven days. Since theSpecial Committee constituted failed to act upon thedirections issued by the government, the committee wasdisbanded and directions were issued to the Director ofMaharashtra Primary Education Council, Mumbai, toconduct the enquiry of the petitioners’ claims.xv.Pursuant to the appointment of theaforementioned authority, the Director of MaharashtraPrimary Education Council further directed the DeputyDirector of Education, Nasik, to conduct enquiry andverification of documents of the petitioners referred to inthe order and submit his report to the office. Accordingly,the Deputy Director of Education has verified and 11 of 45 CP126.2023submitted a detailed report on 29.11.2021 to theDirector of Maharashtra Primary Education Council,Mumbai, with a copy to Director of Education (Primary)and Principal Secretary Mumbai. xvi.In spite of receiving the report from the DeputyDirector dated 29.11.2021, respondent nos. 1 and 2 sattight over the issue and did not take any steps toimplement the directions given by this Court in WritPetition No. 10393/2017 and connected matters. xvii.In view of lethargy on the part of theauthorities to act upon the report the petitioners in WritPetition No. 4944/2022, 4945/2022 and 4946/2022were constrained to file writ petition seekingimplementation of the enquiry report dated 29.11.2021.On this background, this Court has passed an order on25.08.2022. Though respondent no. 2 is aware about thefacts and circumstances of the case merely on account ofthe pressure of respondent no. 1, respondent no. 2 isfiling affidavits contrary to each other, under the pressureof respondent no. 1 which is nothing short of wilfuldisobedience of the order passed by this Court.xviii.By filing false affidavits, respondent no. 2 ismisguiding this Court. The scope of powers undercontempt jurisdiction is limited. The Court can merelyexamine whether there is deliberate and wilfuldisobedience of the order of the directions/orders issuedby the Court.xix.It is the duty of an officer or individual to 12 of 45 CP126.2023comply the orders passed by this Court in its letter andspirit. The person suppose to comply with the ordercannot travel beyond the judgment and order passed bythe Court. In support of his contentions, the learnedSenior Advocate places reliance upon the orders passedby the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V. Senthurand another Versus M. Vijayakumar, IAS, and another, inContempt Petition (Civil) No. 638/2017 in Civil AppealNo. 4954/2016. The petitioner is more particularlyrelying on the part of the observation which reads thus :“There can be no quarrel with theproposition that, in a contemptjurisdiction, the court will not travelbeyond the original judgment anddirections, neither would it be permissiblefor the court to issue any supplementaryor incidental directions, which are not tobe found in the original judgment andorder. The court is only concerned withthe wilful or deliberate non-compliance ofthe directions issued in the originaljudgment and order.” Hence, according to the petitioners,respondent no. 2 was suppose to pass orders in thelight of report dated 29.11.2021, which he hasfailed to comply.xx.The so called orders passed by respondentno. 2 dated 04.09.20223 and 23.11.2023 are not inconsonance with the directions issued by this Court. 13 of 45 CP126.2023Hence, there is a wilful and deliberate contempt of theorders passed by this Court, which needs to be dealt withby this Court appropriately in order to uphold themajesty of justice.7.Per contra, the learned Advocate General Mr. Birendra Sarafappearing virtually for the respondent / State along with learnedGovernment Pleader Mr. Amarjeetsingh Girase, has opposed thecontempt petition. According to the learned Advocate General, there isno substance in allegations made by the contempt petitioners. Thoughbelatedly, the order passed by this Court on 25.08.2022, has beencomplied with, by respondent no. 2 vide order dated 04.09.2023,which is placed on record along with the compliance affidavit. Adetailed order has been passed by the Director of Education (Primary)giving in details of the steps taken by the concerned authority, pursuantto the orders passed by this Court. Though the order passed by thisCourt was complied by taking a decision in terms of order dated04.09.2023, the petitioners have disputed the order by raisingobjection to the verification of record. It is contended that though it isheld in the order dated 04.09.2023, that the original record is notavailable with the office of Education Department of the respectiveZilla Parishads as well as Deputy Director of Education, Nasik Division,Nasik, however, they have obtained those documents under the Rightsto Information Act. 14 of 45 CP126.20238.In view of the dispute about the record raised by thepetitioners this Court had passed an order on 11.10.2023. This Courton 11.10.2023 has directed to act upon the report dated 29.11.2021submitted by the Deputy Director of Education, Nasik Region,addressed to the Project Director and Joint Director, Maharashtra StatePrimary Education Council. As a result of the orders passed by thisCourt, respondent no. 1 has passed an order on 23.11.2023, therebyholding that the report dated 29.11.2021 has been prepared withoutverifying the original record. The sum and substance of the decision is that, after calling thereport from Director of Education (Primary), along with accompanyingdocuments, as well as report dated 29.11.2021, it is found that therecord regarding proposal for starting special units and appointmentfor special teachers/attendants forwarded from the office of DeputyDirector to Director, as well as sanction orders of such unit were notfound in the office of Education Officer; Deputy Director as well as theDirector of Education. The inward outward register also did not reflectupon such any order or communication being forwarded to the officeof Director of Education (Primary).9.According to the learned Advocate General, even the orderpassed by this Court on 11.10.2023, has been complied with in itsletter and spirit. Respondent no. 1 who is the highest authority in the 15 of 45 CP126.2023State in the Education Department, has taken decision as directed bythis Court, based on report 29.10.2021. Since the original record wasnot scrutinized by the Deputy Director, Nasik, while preparing thereport dated 29.11.2021, and the original record was not madeavailable, claims of the petitioners have been rejected.10.Learned Advocate General has relied on the affidavit filedby the State Government on 19.04.2025, in order to demonstrate thesteps taken by the state government pursuant to the orders passed bythis Court from time to time. Though there were number of affidavitsfiled by the State prior to the affidavit dated 19.04.2025, a freshaffidavit has been filed by the state reproducing the date wise stepstaken by the state authorities, after the orders passed by this Court on25.08.2022, with reference to order passed by this Court on11.03.2019 in Writ Petition No. 2468/2019 and connected writpetitions. The steps taken by the state authorities are produced in atabular form with relevant documents annexed to the affidavit :I.The Deputy Secretary, State of Maharashtra hasinformed the Director of Education (Primary) on 11.02.2021about formation of 5 members committee to be headed bythe Director of Education to scrutinize the documents of thepetitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 10393//2017, 10417/2017,1189/2017, 2434/2018, 2468/2019 and 3390/2019, theCommittee was suppose to scrutinize the original record andsubmit a report within seven days. 16 of 45 CP126.2023II.The Joint Director of Education informed theDirector of Education (Primary), that the Committee whichwas formed to scrutinize the documents have failed tosubmit the report within seven days, hence the committeehas been disbanded.III.It is further informed that the Director of Education(Primary) was instructed to verify the sanction orders andindividual approvals issued from his office and submit thereport about such orders after verifying its genuineness fromthe original records, if necessary by taking assistance of theProject Director Maharashtra Shikshan Parishad. Similarly,the work of verifying the genuineness of the orders, eligibilityof the teachers, unit sanction orders, etc. in respect of thepetitioners in six writ petitions was given to the State ProjectDirector, Maharashtra Prathmic Shikshan Parishad. TheCommittee constituted under the State Project Director wasdirected to submit the report after verification of the recordto the State Government.IV.Accordingly, the State Project Director andCoordinator, Maharashtra State Primary Education Council,Mumbai, has directed the Deputy Director of EducationNasik, vide communication dated 05.10.2021 to verify therecord of the special teachers and attendants appointedunder the scheme. It was directed that the knowledgeableand responsible officers from the office of Director ofEducation should remain present along with the relevantrecord of the petitioners along with inward and outwardregisters on 11.10.2021. 17 of 45 CP126.2023V.Pursuant to the communication received from theState Project Director and Coordinator, the Deputy Directorof Education has submitted his report on 29.11.2021. In thereport, it is submitted that from the reports received fromthe Education Officers and the record available in the officeof Deputy Director, Nashik, the documents in respect ofindividual approval of the petitioner as well as unit approvalis available. Since powers to absorb the petitioners is amatter of policy decision, such powers are to be exercised bythe State Government. Therefore, appropriate action shouldbe taken by State Government. The information of thepetitioners along with their unit approval, date ofappointment and individual approval has been provided intabular form. After submission of the report dated29.11.2021, this Court has passed orders in Writ Petition No.4944/2022, 4945/2022 and 4966/2022 vide order dated25.08.2022 directing the Director of Education (Primary) toproceed to take action in the light of enquiry report dated29.11.2021 within a period of six weeks.VI.Pursuant to the order dated 25.08.2022,respondent no. 1/State directed the Director of Education(Primary) to submit a final report / recommendation to theState Government in order to enable the State Governmentto take decision about absorption of the petitioners. Onreceiving the communication from respondent no. 1,respondent no.2 has informed the Deputy Director ofEducation, Nasik Division, Nasik, to make the necessaryinformation available for which a meeting was convened on16.11.2022. 18 of 45 CP126.2023VII.Similar communication was issued to thepetitioners on 09.11.2022, calling upon them to submit theirwritten statements in order to enable the Director ofEducation (Primary) to submit his report to the StateGovernment. Certain shortcomings and deficiencies aboutthe documents were communicated by the Deputy Director ofEducation (Primary), informing that record in respect of unitapproval orders during the period 05.01.2009 to 15.01.2009,is not found in the inward register. Photocopy of the saidregister is made available. The outward entries in the registerregarding unit sanction order and individual approval atoutward no. 550 and 1388 in respect of 387 teachers in theform of photocopies is made available. The certified copyfrom the original of the report dated 29.11.2021 submittedby the Deputy Director of Education, Nasik, is made availableby the Deputy Director. Based on the information receivedfrom the Deputy Director, the petitioners and other officialsources the fact finding report is submitted by the Director ofEducation (Primary) on 09.01.2023. VIII.The Director of Education submitted the reportobserving that hearing was held on multiple occasions andthe report submitted by Deputy Director, Nasik, is based onfake and bogus documents. Details of the fake documents arementioned in the report. IX.In response to the various communicationsreceived from the government, the Director of Education(Primary) submitted his report on 20.04.2023, informingabout the reasons for his refusal to rely on the reportsubmitted by Deputy Director of Education, Nasik, dated 19 of 45 CP126.202329.11.2021.X.After receiving the report from the Director ofEducation (Primary), respondent no. 1 directed therespondent no. 2 vide communication dated 31.07.2023, totake decision pursuant to the orders passed by this Court on25.08.2022 in respect of special teachers, after giving theman opportunity of hearing and verifying their documents.XI.After receipt of communication from respondentno. 1 dated 31.07.2023, respondent no. 2 - Director ofEducation has granted full opportunity of hearing thepetitioners and after examining the record that was madeavailable by the petitioner as well as the respectiveauthorities a decision was taken on 04.09.2023 and it wascommunicated to the petitioners.XII.Learned Advocate General submits that, from theaforementioned steps taken by the State Governmentpursuant to the order passed by this Court, it is evident thatthe State authorities have taken steps for verification of thedocuments of the petitioners and after comparing it with therecord available in the office of Director as well as DeputyDirector of Education, Nasik, it was transpired that claim ofthe petitioners is bogus and not genuine. Though it isclaimed by the petitioners that they have the copies ofdocuments under the Right to Information Act, those are notgenuine, the respective information officers were called uponto explain about the same, who have informed that, thedocuments were not issued from their office. 20 of 45 CP126.2023XIV.So far as the claim of the petitioners that the reportdated 29.11.2021, was a final enquiry report which wasexpected to be acted upon, as per the orders of this Court isconcerned, upon going through the report, it would revealthat it was not at all a final enquiry report but it wasprepared in response to the information that was called uponfrom the Deputy Director of Education, Nasik, for completingthe procedure of verification of claims of the petitioners.Therefore, though this Court has directed to take a decisionin the light of the said report dated 29.11.2021, uponverifying the documents placed along with the said report, itis revealed that the documents were not genuine and thereport was not prepared after verifying the originaldocuments.XV.The report merely states the record in respect ofindividual approval and unit approval is available with therespective Education Officers.XVI.It is further submitted that after reading the orderof which contempt is alleged, it is clear that, it is expected bythis Court that the Director of Education being the higherand responsible authority of state government, was toconduct a detail enquiry and thereafter, act on the same. Thereport submitted by the Deputy Director of Education on29.09.2021, relied upon by the petitioner was in fact theinformation provided from his office. Learned AdvocateGeneral, therefore, submits that the State Authority have notcommitted any contempt of the orders passed by this Court.Though there is a delay in compliance of the order passed bythis Court, yet fact remains that as directed by this Court the 21 of 45 CP126.2023Director of Education (Primary) has already taken a decisionafter taking into consideration the report dated 29.11.2021,hence, the prayer made in contempt petition does notdeserve consideration.XVII.The petitioners have raised various disputedquestion of facts by filing affidavits from time to time, whichcannot be a subject matter of contempt petition. Thepetitioners propose to dispute the decision taken by theDirector of Education (Primary) the respondent no. 2, theremedy lies elsewhere. The petitioners cannot raise challengeto the decision taken by respondent no. 2 in contemptjurisdiction. The petitioners will have invoked appropriateprovisions of law and challenge the same. Hence, the prayerof petitioners does not deserve consideration.11.After hearing respective parties in detail, it appears thecontempt petition nos. 530/2019, 533/2019, 539/2019 have beenclubbed along with the present Contempt Petition no. 126/2023.Contempt Petition Nos. 530/2019, 533/2019 and 539/2019, arises outof a common order passed by this Court in all the writ petitions on11.03.2019, which reads thus : “1. Mr. Sapkal, learned Advocate for the petitionerssubmits that the petitioners in all these writpetitions are appointed as Teachers for the Unitssanctioned and approved by the Government toteach handicapped students. All these petitionersare appointed prior to 1st March,2009 andapproval to their appointment is also granted by 22 of 45 CP126.2023the Director of Education, (Primary), Pune.2. Learned counsel relies on the GovernmentResolution dated 15th September, 2010 to submitthat those units which have been closed down, theteachers working there in and given approval priorto 1st March, 2009 are to be absorbed in regularschools. The special units are closed down and thehandicapped students are now to be impartededucation in regular schools.3. Mr. Patil, learned Addl.G.P. submits that thedocuments placed by the petitioners on recordregarding their approval and subsequent lettersshowing names of the petitioners beingrecommended by the Consultant are manipulateddocuments. The orders dated 21.01.2009 and23.02.2009 relied by the petitioners are not issuedby respondent No.3. On 23.02.2009 there beingholiday on account of Mahashivratri, not a singleletter was issued by respondent no.3 on that day.Respondent No.2 Director of Education (Primary)has approved the list of 341 special Teachers andAttendants for absorption under letter dated02.11.2012. The names of the petitioners were notincluded in the said list.4. We have considered the submissions.5. The affidavit in reply, on behalf of therespondents, is filed by the Incharge ScienceConsultant, in the office of the Deputy Director of 23 of 45 CP126.2023Education, Nashik Region. The relevantconsideration would be the date of appointment ofthe petitioners in a particular unit and aboutapprovals granted to their appointment. Accordingto the petitioners, approval is granted by theDirector of Education and the letters showingapproval granted by the Director of Education arefiled alongwith writ petitions. The stand of therespondent is contrary, saying that no such lettersexist and that all the documents placed by thepetitioners are manipulated one. The Director ofEducation (Primary) has not filed any affidavit inthe present matter.6. Considering the ground raised by therespondents, it will be appropriate for the Directorof Education (Primary) Pune to conduct an enquirywith regard to the genuineness of the documentsplaced by the petitioner on record. The Director ofEducation is a Higher and responsible officer. TheDirector of Education (Primary) shall consider hisrecord so also the documents that may beproduced by the petitioners before him and shalltake decision about the genuineness of thedocuments placed by the petitioners and as towhether the Director of Education had reallygranted approvals to the Units as contended by thepetitioners and so also approved the names of theteachers working therein, as it is submitted that allthese orders and approvals are prior to 1st March,2009. 24 of 45 CP126.20237. Depending upon the decision that would betaken by the Director of Education (Primary) afterconducting enquiry regarding genuineness of thedocuments placed before it, the parties make takefurther steps accordingly.8. Needless to state, if the Director of Education(Primary) arises at the conclusion that thedocuments produced by the petitioners aregenuine and that office of the Director ofEducation has granted approval to the Units andthe petitioners, then the Director of Education andthe authorities may take further steps ascontemplated in the Government Resolution dated15th September,2010.9. If the Director of Education (Primary) recordsconclusion that the documents produced by thepetitioners are not genuine one, then the Directorof Education (Primary) is also entitled to takefurther steps against the erring persons.10. Writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. Nocosts.11. The Director of Education (Primary), if it ispossible, may conduct enquiry and conclude hisfinding expeditiously, preferably within threemonths.” (As verbatim)12.A prayer was made by the petitioners to absorb them in 25 of 45 CP126.2023service in view of government resolution dated 15.09.2010, by issuingappropriate directions. When the matter was heard on 11.03.2019, itwas observed by this Court that, though it was claimed by thepetitioners that their appointment order as well as unit sanction orderare approved by the Director of Education (Primary). The claim of thepetitioner was opposed by the government. It was stated that thedocuments regarding individual and unit approval orders andsubsequent communications recommending their names aremanipulated.13.Hence, in view of the conflicting claims of the petitionersand the State Authorities, this Court thought it fit to direct the Directorof Education (Primary), who was the highest and responsible authorityof the State Government, to conduct enquiry about the genuineness ofthe documents of the petitioners based on record and take decisionabout their absorption.14.In the above mentioned three contempt petitions the replyaffidavit has been filed by respondent no. 2 and upon going throughthe same, it transpires that the enquiry as contemplated by the ordersof this Court has been conducted by the Director of Education(Primary), after granting opportunity of hearing to the concernedparties, the Director of Education (Primary) has rejected claim of thepetitioners vide order dated 02.12.2020, 29.12.2020 and 01.01.2021,