Bombay High Court

PARMESHWAR HONAJI KALEversusTHE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH VINAY MITTAL AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The appointment of a permanent candidate did not violate the interim order, and the contempt petition was dismissed.

Summary

Dr. Parmeshwar Honaji Kale filed a contempt petition alleging that an interim order protecting him from being replaced by anyone other than a permanent candidate was violated when a permanent candidate was appointed. The respondents argued that the interim order only barred replacement by a non‑permanent candidate and that the appointment of a permanent candidate was permissible. The Court noted that it had already held on 04‑12‑2013 that there was no breach of the interim order and that the main writ petition (No. 2125 of 2012) had been dismissed on 29‑01‑2014. Consequently, the Court found no surviving ground for the contempt petition and disposed of it. The petition was therefore dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the appointment of a permanent candidate in place of the petitioner violated the interim order protecting the petitioner
Whether the contempt petition remains maintainable after the dismissal of the main writ petition

Subjects

contempt of court
interim order
appointment
civil service
writ petition
dismissal

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:39024-DB

908 CONT. PETITION NO. 310 OF 2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

908 CONT. PETITION NO. 310 OF 2013
IN WP/2125/2012

Dr. Parmeshwar Honaji Kale
Versus
The Union Of India And Others

__________________________________________________________
Adv. Dhoble Vishnu Laxman for the Petitioner - Absent
Adv. Manish N. Navandar for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2
__________________________________________________________

CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND
VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ.

DATE : AUGUST 28, 2026

PER COURT :

1) None appears for the petitioner.

2) The learned counsel for the respondents, on

instructions, submits that by way of an interim order, the

petitioner was protected only from being replaced by anyone

other than a permanent candidate. Subsequently, a

permanent candidate became available and was appointed

in place of the petitioner.

3) Moreover, under the order dated 04.12.2013,

this Court had already opined that there is no violation of

the interim order passed by this Court, which is the subject
Komal Kamble Page 1 of 2
908 CONT. PETITION NO. 310 OF 2013

matter of this contempt petition. Furthermore, the main

Writ Petition No. 2125 of 2012 was already dismissed on

29.01.2014.

4) In view of the above, nothing survives in the

present petition. Contempt Petition, therefore, stands

disposed of.

(VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV) (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE)
JUDGE JUDGE

Komal Kamble Page 2 of 2

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…