IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION (L) NO. 111 OF 2006 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1953 OF 2005 B.M.C. & Ors. ... Petitioners V/s. Sanjay Suresh Sawant & Ors. ... Respondents Ms. Preeti Purandare i/b. S.H. Ujjainwala & Ors. for petitioner. Mr. Manish Mistry i/b. M/s. M.P. Vashi & Assoc. for respondents. CORAM CORAM CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & : F.I. REBELLO & : F.I. REBELLO & ANOOP ANOOP ANOOP V. MOHTA,JJ. V. MOHTA,JJ. V. MOHTA,JJ. DATED DATED DATED : 28th November, 2006 : 28th November, 2006 : 28th November, 2006 P.C. . This review application is seeking review of the order to point out that the security guards who were selected against reserved posts should be asked to submit Caste Certificates. That point was not considered by us in our order dated 03.05.2005. Apart from that a Writ Petition No. 2711 of 2006 filed by Bhushan S. Karbhari and ors. apprehending that their services will be terminated as they have been appointed against reserved posts and their caste validity has not been determined by the relevant committee. By order dated 20th October, 2006, we had directed the applicant herein, who are respondents in this petition not to terminate their services and the ( 2 ) Caste Scrutiny Committee was directed to dispose of the applications not later than six weeks. Considering the above, in our opinion, no case is made out for review of the order. The review petition accordingly disposed of. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks time to comply with the order. The Corporation had sufficient time, and a contempt petition is already pending. In the light of that, we decline to extend the time. [F.I. [F.I. [F.I. REBELLO, J.] REBELLO, J.] REBELLO, J.] [ANOOP [ANOOP [ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.] V. MOHTA, J.] V. MOHTA, J.]