RAMNATH SHIVRAM SAWANT v. THE STATE OF MAH AND ORS
CP/302/2009 · 2026-10-13
Contempt Petitionbody2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 20058 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 20058 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
302.09CP 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 904 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 302 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.780 OF 2008 RAMNATH SHIVRAM SAWANT VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & OTHERS … Advocate for the petitioner : Mr.Atharva R.Mharolkar h/f. K.M.Nagarkar AGP for Respondent-State : Mr.A.S.Shinde Advocate for respondent no.3 : Mr.P.G.Tambade h/f. Mr.S.S.Jadhavar …
CORAM :
SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE & VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV,JJ. DATE : 13.10.2026
ORDER : [PER : VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV,J.] 1] In the order under contempt, the following three compliances were directed to be made : i] Respondent Nos.3 and 4 to forward a proposal to respondent no. 2 for sanctioning a post of full-time Lecturer in the Junior College within three weeks from today; ii] On such proposal being forwarded, Respondent no.2 to consider the same on its own merits and communicate the decision thereof to 2026:BHC-AUG:48960
302.09CP 2 respondent nos. 3 and 4, at any rate, not later than eight weeks from the receipt of the proposal. iii] If the post in question is sanctioned, respondent nos. 3 and 4 then to forward a proposal for consideration of appointment of the petitioner on the said post to the respondent no.2, which will be then considered according to law. 2] Respondent no.2 has filed an affidavit stating that the post was sanctioned by the Government hence direction No.(i) and (ii) are complied. In compliance of direction No.(iii), the management had forwarded proposal for the appointment of the petitioner, but, certain deficiencies were found in the proposal which the management failed to rectify. As the management did not rectify the defects, the respondent no.2 Deputy Director of Education, Pune rejected the proposal.
3] Hence, it seems that all the three directions were complied with. In view of the same, nothing survives in the present petition and the same is disposed of.
302.09CP 3 4] The petitioner is at liberty to challenge the rejection of approval by resorting to appropriate remedy available in law.
[VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV] [SANDIPKUMAR C.MORE] JUDGE JUDGE DDC