1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.963 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2719 OF 1984 P.D.Prabhudesai ..Applicant Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors. ..Respondents ......... Mr.P.D.Prabhudesai, applicant­in­person present. Mrs.S.S.Bhende, AGP for respondent State. ......... CORAM: P.B.MAJMUDAR & R.G.KETKAR, JJ. DATE : 19th APRIL, 2010. P.C. : By way of this application, the applicant has prayed that the decision given by the School Tribunal in Appeal No.105 of 1983 may be set aside and the matter may be remanded to the School Tribunal, Kolhapur Region, Kolhapur, for deciding the appeal afresh. 2] The applicant was appointed on probation by the respondent No.4 – Institution to the post of Foreman by appointment order dated 17 th October, 1980 and his service came to be terminated by the Institution on 8 th August, 1983. The said termination order was challenged by the petitioner before the School Tribunal by way of Appeal. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that it 963­10.sxw 2 has no jurisdiction to decide the dispute of an employee of Polytechnic Institution as the Polytechnic Institution cannot be said to be a private school. 3] The said decision of the Tribunal was challenged by the present applicant in this Court by way of filing Writ Petition No.2719 of 1984. The Division Bench of this Court dismissed the said Writ Petition holding that since the applicant was an employee in the Polytechnic Institution and the said Institution cannot be said to be a private school, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute. Accordingly, the Division Bench of this Court confirmed the order passed by the Tribunal and dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the present applicant by order dated 20 th October, 1986. The present applicant did not pursue the matter further. The dispute of the applicant was, accordingly, adjudicated as back as on 20 th October, 1986. 4] The applicant filed this Civil Application on 26 th March, 2010 with a prayer that the order of the Tribunal may be set aside. In this application, the applicant appeared in person. It is the case of the applicant that he read a news in the newspaper namely Lokmat Samachar. According to the applicant, his friend sent him the said newspaper cutting on 23 rd February, 2010 wherein he read a news report to the effect that the employees of the Polytechnic Institution are also the employees who comes under the M.E.P.S. Act. After reading the said news report, this application is filed for setting aside the order of the 963­10.sxw 3 Tribunal. The applicant has submitted that since the Full Bench of this Court has taken a view that the employees of the Polytechnic Institution are also covered under the M.E.P.S. Act, the decision given by the Tribunal as also of this Court is no longer a good law. He, therefore, requested that the matter may be remanded to the Tribunal. 5] In this connection, it is required to be noted that the decision on the law point rendered by the Division Bench of this Court was referred to Full Bench and the Full Bench overruled the view taken by the Division Bench about the maintainability of the proceedings before the Tribunal. However, the question which requires consideration is as to whether on this ground the decision given by the Division Bench can be reviewed by this Court. It is true that the decision given by the Division Bench in the case of the present applicant was referred to the Full Bench and the Full Bench took a view that the decision taken by the Division Bench of this Court is not correct and that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide the dispute even in connection with the employees of the polytechnic institutions. It is further required to be noted that simply because the decision of the Division bench has been overruled by the Full Bench in another matter, it is not a ground for review of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered earlier. The Division Bench has decided the matter of the present applicant as back as on 20 th October, 1986. Now, more than twenty four years 963­10.sxw 4 have passed. The decision given by the Division Bench itself became final as the same was not challenged by the applicant in the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Simply because a particular view on the point of law is taken by the Full Bench, such decision cannot be reviewed when the rights between the parties are already crystalized. 6] At this stage, a reference is required to be made to the proviso of Order XLVI and explanation given below Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure which provides as under:­ 1. Application for review of judgment.­ (1) Any person considering himself aggrieved, ­ (a) By a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred, (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the fact of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order. (2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may apply for a review of judgment 963­10.sxw 5 notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present to the Appellate Court the case on which he applies for the review. [Explanation.­ The fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior Court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment.] 7] Considering the said explanation, in our view, review petition is not maintainable simply because the decision rendered by the Court is overruled on the question of law in a subsequent matter. It is also required to be noted that the Division Bench has decided the dispute as back as in the year 1986. The Full Bench judgment was delivered in the year 2003 and this application, even if the same is treated as a review application, is filed in the year 2010 and even on that additional ground also, this application is required to be rejected. We, therefore, see no merit in the application and the same is, accordingly, rejected. [R.G. KETKAR, J.] [P.B. MAJMUDAR, J.] 963­10.sxw