1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Misc. Civil Application (Review) No.1181 of 2010 In Writ Petition No.2538 of 2009 (D) (Ramesh s/o Yadavrao Newal v. Ravindranath Tagore Shikshan Mandal, Gitainagar, Gopuri, Wardha, through its President and Secretary and others) Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order Shri Gopal G. Mishra, Advocate for Applicant. Shri A.S. Chandurkar, Advocate for Non-Applicant No.3. Coram : R.K. Deshpande, J. Dated : 29 th June, 2011 1. This is an application for review of the judgment and order dated 28-1-2010 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.2538 of 2009. The said writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the findings recorded by the School Tribunal, Chandrapur, has been dismissed. It has been held that the initial appointment of the applicant/petitioner on 23-6-1986 was as an untrained Teacher and the subsequent appointment dated 30-6-1987 was in the reserved vacancy. The order of appointment indicated that the appointment was on a purely temporary basis. From the original record of the writ petition, it seems that there is an order dated 21-3-1989, on page 135, passed by the Education Officer granting his approval to the appointment 2 of the applicant/petitioner for the Academic Session 1987-88. It shows that the appointment of the applicant/petitioner on a temporary basis was against the vacancy reserved for the Scheduled Caste candidate. Similarly, the roster attached to this review application, on page 25, shows that the appointment of the applicant/petitioner was against the roster point for Scheduled Tribe candidate. 2. Shri Mishra, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant/petitioner, submits that after the decision of this Court, the non-applicant/respondent No.2 had supplied the copy of the roster to the applicant/petitioner on 1-6-2010, wherein it is shown that the applicant/petitioner was shown to have been accommodated against the open category vacancy, whereas the non-applicant/respondent No.3 has been shown to be appointed against the vacancy reserved for Scheduled Tribe candidate, but he belongs to Scheduled Caste. The learned counsel has also produced on record the certificate issued by the President of the Institution showing that the applicant/petitioner has been accommodated against the vacancy reserved for open category candidate. 3. Even if the documents relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner are taken into consideration, the same would indicate that it is a possible view of the matter. Hence, no error apparent on the face of the record is traceable. 4. The Misc. Civil Application for review is, therefore, dismissed. Judge 3 pdl