1 pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 662 OF 2003 IN REVIEW PETITION STAMP NO. 1279 OF 2003 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 420 OF 1999 Sau Mugdha Prabhakar Sangelkar .. Applicant (Org.Petitioner) Vs. 1. The State of Maharashtra and ors. .. Respondents Ms. Gunjan Shah i/by Mr. Sanjeev Sawant for applicant. Mr. S.D. Rairikar, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 3 and 5. Mr. S.V. Sadavarte for respondent no.7. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ. March 08, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard Ms. Shah the learned counsel for the applicant. 2. The applicant has filed Review Petition under Stamp No. 1279 2 of 2003 but belatedly and hence this application for condonation of delay. 3. The only reason in support of the prayer for delay condonation is that the University of Mumbai issued a Circular on 27/2/2002 and the State Teachers Mahavidyalay addressed a letter to her on 5/2/2002 and, therefore, for the first time the applicant came to know that these documents support her case for protection to be retained as a Lecturer in the Government run College of Education. 4. Writ Petition No. 420 of 1999 was decided by us on 18/7/2000 and it was held that the post was required to be filled in through the Maharashtra Public Service Commission (MPSC) and the appointment of the petitioner was purely on ad-hoc basis till the MPSC selected candidate was appointed. The petitioner also did not possess the Net/Set qualification when the order under review was passed. 5. Thus the explanation so furnished that the review petition is filed on the basis of the subsequent Circulars issued by the University of Mumbai cannot be a reason to condone the inordinate delay of 2 years and 146 days. Even otherwise, if the applicant has now obtained the 3 qualifications, she may be eligible for the post of Lecturer but that selection has to be done by the MPSC and she may have a case to file a fresh application before the MAT. However, we are satisfied that the explanation furnished to condone the delay cannot be accepted as a good and sufficient ground. 6. Hence, the application is rejected. (SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI,J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)