1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CAO NO. 718/2011 IN MCA ST. NO. 638/2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2356 OF 2010 (Prakash Sitaramji Bhoyar vs. Dy. Director of Vocational Education & Training & Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & A.B. CHAUDHARI, JJ. NOVEMBER 08, 2011. Heard Shri Shende, learned counsel for the applicant/ appellant/ employee, Shri Bagde, learned AGP for respondent No.1 and Shri Deshpande, learned counsel for respondents No. 2 & 3. Perused the impugned order of School Tribunal. This Court has after hearing respective counsel on 08.12.2010 while disposing of Writ Petition No. 2356 of 2010, recorded a statement of learned counsel for respondent No. 2. The facts clearly show that M.C.V.C. Course was closed down as such provisions of Rule 25A of MEPS Rules are relevant and accordingly this Court has recognized the right of the applicant/ petitioner to be considered and statement of learned counsel for respondent No. 2 accordingly has been recorded. At this stage, Shri Shende, learned counsel 2 invites attention to the orders passed on 24.11.2008 in Writ Petition No. 1429 of 2007. The said writ petition was filed by Respondent No. 2 and this Court while refusing to entertain petition has observed that all other issues are deemed to have been closed and cannot be gone into. It is his contention that thus stand of management that retrenchment of employee was covered under Rule 25A has been rejected by this Court and the order dated 08.12.2010 cannot, therefore, be interpreted in a manner so as to open the issue which is already closed. The perusal of that order shows that the challenge was to the order of Deputy Director, directing the petitioner management to absorb Respondent No. 5. The said Division Bench on 24.11.2008 found that the Court had ordered enquiry and the question whether due to absorption of Respondent No. 5, there would be roster imbalance in the institution or otherwise was left open. The issue was considered by the Deputy Director and the vacancy then available was found in open category. This Division Bench has noted that Respondent No. 5 under his earlier employer was also selected against open seat. It is not the case of present employee that after those orders dated 24.11.2008, anybody has been appointed by Respondent No. 2 – employer. In this situation, though we condone delay of four days in filing 3 the application for review, no case is made out warranting any interference in review jurisdiction. With a liberty to the applicant/ employee to re-agitate his grievance again in case he finds his claim superseded, we dispose of the MCA. JUDGE JUDGE *GS.