2026:BHC-AUG:34642-DB 952 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8446 OF 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 952 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8446 OF 2026 IN CP/75/2026 The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon Versus Dipak Savai Sarode __________________________________________________________ Mr. N. B. Patil for Applicant - State Mr. V. S. Panpatte for the Respondent __________________________________________________________ WITH CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 75 OF 2026 IN WP/13368/2025 Dipak Savai Sarode Versus Shri Ranjit Singh Deol And Others __________________________________________________________ Mr. V. S. Panpatte for the Petitioner Mr. N. B. Patil for State __________________________________________________________ CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE & VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ. DATE : 06.08.2026 PER COURT : 1] Heard. 2] Although the bailable warrant issued against Respondent No. 3 – the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon, in the main Contempt Petition is shown as awaited, Respondent No. 3 is present before the Court. Komal Kamble Page|1 952 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8446 OF 2026

3] The learned AGP has pointed out that, in compliance with the directions issued by this Court, the petitioner's proposal has already been decided. The communication dated 27.07.2026 addressed to the concerned Principal has also been placed on record along with the affidavit-in-reply, and a copy thereof has been communicated to the petitioner. Thus, it appears that the directions issued by this Court have been complied with. 4] The petitioner is at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings for challenging the rejection of his proposal for grant of approval, if so advised. In view thereof, nothing survives in the main Contempt Petition. Consequently, the pending Civil Application seeking recall of the order issuing the bailable warrant against Respondent No. 3 is allowed and the said order stands recalled. 5] However, considering the conduct of Respondent No. 3 and the delay in deciding the petitioner's proposal, we deem it appropriate to impose costs upon Respondent No. 3, as the proposal came to be decided only on the very day the bailable warrant was issued against her. Komal Kamble Page|2 952 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8446 OF 2026 6] Accordingly, Respondent No. 3 shall pay costs of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to the Chairman, Library Committee, Advocates' Association of Bombay High Court, Bench at Aurangabad, within two weeks from today. 7] Accordingly, the Civil Application as well as the main Contempt Petition stand disposed of.

(VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV) (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE) JUDGE JUDGE Komal Kamble Page|3

2026:BHC-AUG:34642-DB 952 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8446 OF 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 952 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8446 OF 2026 IN CP/75/2026 The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon Versus Dipak Savai Sarode __________________________________________________________ Mr. N. B. Patil for Applicant - State Mr. V. S. Panpatte for the Respondent __________________________________________________________ WITH CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 75 OF 2026 IN WP/13368/2025 Dipak Savai Sarode Versus Shri Ranjit Singh Deol And Others __________________________________________________________ Mr. V. S. Panpatte for the Petitioner Mr. N. B. Patil for State __________________________________________________________ CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE & VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ. DATE : 06.08.2026 PER COURT : 1] Heard. 2] Although the bailable warrant issued against Respondent No. 3 – the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon, in the main Contempt Petition is shown as awaited, Respondent No. 3 is present before the Court. Komal Kamble Page|1 952 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8446 OF 2026

3] The learned AGP has pointed out that, in compliance with the directions issued by this Court, the petitioner's proposal has already been decided. The communication dated 27.07.2026 addressed to the concerned Principal has also been placed on record along with the affidavit-in-reply, and a copy thereof has been communicated to the petitioner. Thus, it appears that the directions issued by this Court have been complied with. 4] The petitioner is at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings for challenging the rejection of his proposal for grant of approval, if so advised. In view thereof, nothing survives in the main Contempt Petition. Consequently, the pending Civil Application seeking recall of the order issuing the bailable warrant against Respondent No. 3 is allowed and the said order stands recalled. 5] However, considering the conduct of Respondent No. 3 and the delay in deciding the petitioner's proposal, we deem it appropriate to impose costs upon Respondent No. 3, as the proposal came to be decided only on the very day the bailable warrant was issued against her. Komal Kamble Page|2 952 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8446 OF 2026 6] Accordingly, Respondent No. 3 shall pay costs of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to the Chairman, Library Committee, Advocates' Association of Bombay High Court, Bench at Aurangabad, within two weeks from today. 7] Accordingly, the Civil Application as well as the main Contempt Petition stand disposed of.

(VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV) (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE) JUDGE JUDGE Komal Kamble Page|3