RAJESH K Vs. B S PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This contempt petition had been filed by fifteen persons who claimed that the order of this Court dated 6/5/2003 had been violated.

(2.) In that order this Court had reaffirmed an earlier decision dated 11/10/2001 in which it had been held that the persons who had been given interim appointment pending an appeal on the basis of rural weightage would not be entitled to so continue. In the concluding portion of the order dated 6/5/2003 we had also said:

(3.) Out of fifteen petitioners, fourteen, whose names were on the selection list, have been issued appointment letters in order of merit. The remaining applicant is Raju who is Petitioner 7 in the contempt petition.