233mca730.10.odt 1 . IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Misc. Civil Application No. 730 of 2010 in Writ Petition No. 4878 of 2009 (D) (Mrs. Jyoti w/o. Prakash Watkar .vs. State and Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders Coram: D. D. Sinha and A. P. Bhangale, JJ. Date : 23/03/2011. Heard Mr.A.C.Dharmadhikari, Adv. for the applicant, Mr.Thakur, Adv. for respondent nos. 2 and 3 and Mr.N.S.Khubalkar, Adv for respondent no.6. This review application has been filed in respect of order dated 7th December, 2009 whereby Writ Petition No.4878 of 2009 came to be disposed of on the ground that the petitioner, on the earlier occasion, had challenged selection of present respondent no.6 to the post of Professor in Shalakyatantra by filing Writ Petition No.727 of 2009, which was dismissed vide order dtd. 3rd August, 2009. Since, in Writ Petition No.4878 of 2009, the same challenge had been raised based on different ground, this Court vide impugned 233mca730.10.odt 2 . order dt. 7.12.2009 dismissed Writ Petition No.4878 of 2009 as not maintainable. Hence, the said order is under review. We have considered the contentions canvassed by the respective Counsel and perused the order dt. 3.8.2009 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.727 of 2009. The second para of the said order reads thus : “ By this petition, the petitioner challenges the appointment of respondent no.5 to the post of Profession in Shalakyatantra in the college run by respondent no.1” Operative part of the order reads thus : “ Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, we find no merit in the present petition. In our considered opinion, the ratio laid down in the case of Dhananjay Malik (supra) is squarely applicable in the present case. The petitioner having applied pursuant to the advertisement dated 30.8.2009 issued by respondent no.1 and having 233mca730.10.odt 3 . participated in the process of selection cannot now turn down and contend that she was entitled to be promoted to the post which has to be filled by promotion and not by nomination. If the petitioner had any grievance, she ought to have challenged action taken by respondent no.1 for filling up the said post by nomination. The petitioner having not been done so is now estopped from contending that the post ought to have been filled by promotion and not by nomination. Therefore, we find no merit in the present petition. Consequently, the petition stands dismissed.” Plain reading of the order would clearly show that the petitioner has challenged appointment of the then respondent no.5 (present respondent no.6) to the post of Professor. There is a mention in the order that except the ground considered by the Court and finding recorded in the order dt. 3.8.2009, no other ground was raised by the petitioner before the Court. It is in these facts and circumstances that this Court had dismissed the earlier Petition bearing Writ Petition 233mca730.10.odt 4 . No.4878 of 2009 vide impugned order dt. 7.12.2009 on the ground that the cause of action involved in Writ Petition No.4878 of 2009 is identical to one involved in Writ Petition No.727 of 2009 except the challenge which is based on the ground different than the one raised in the earlier petition and therefore, dismissed Writ Petition No.4878 of 2009 by the impugned order. Counsel for the petitioner has tried to persuade us that the challenges raised in both these earlier Writ Petitions were not identical and therefore, the order under review be allowed. The contention canvassed by the learned Counsel, in our view, is not correct. On the backdrop of the above referred facts as well as the text of the orders passed by this Court earlier, no case is made out for showing indulgence. Hence, the Misc. Civil Application for review is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE jais