1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR C.A.O. No.1112/2010 in M.C.A. St. (R) No.14093/2009 in W.P. No.1302/1992 (D) ( Government Engineering College, Pune, through Principal ..V/s.. Namdeo s/o Adkooji Headu and others ) ............................................................................................................................................................................................. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ............................................................................................................................................................................................. Mrs. Dangre, Addl.G.P. for applicant. Mr. A.C. Dharmadhikari, Adv. for respondent no.1. CORAM : S.A. BOBDE AND M.N. GILANI, JJ. DATE : 17.09.2011. Heard. This is an application for condonation of delay of a period of 4 years and 360 days in filing the review application. The instant review application has been filed on 22/8/2008 seeking review of the judgment of this Court dated 10th September 2004. The principal ground for seeking the review is this Court relied on a Government Resolution dated 15/3/2000 while granting protection of service to the respondent no.1 when in fact such a Government Resolution was not in existence. According 2 to the applicant State of Maharashtra did not issue any such Government Resolution on 15/3/2011 and therefore, upon discovery of this fact they issued a Government Resolution dated 20/3/2002 stating that no resolution on 15/3/2010 protecting the appointments of Scheduled Tribe category candidates made prior to 14th July 1998 was issued. In fact, it is submitted that on 25/5/2007 the General Administration Department of the Maharashtra Government has issued a circular calling upon all departments of the Government to verify the cases in which an employee, concerned, has entered in service or obtained promotion by relying on the bogus Government Resolution dated 15/3/2000. Soon thereafter, according to the applicant, the present application for review was filed on 22/8/2008 in the process of discovery of various cases in which matters have been decided on the basis of the bogus Government Resolution. Mr. Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for the respondent no.1, submitted that there is an unexplained delay of entire period after the bogus circular was discovered and even after the G.A.D. issued a circular asking the department to verify the cases. According to 3 learned counsel this resolution was passed on 25th May 2007 and the application has been moved on 22/8/2008. It is true that there is a time lag between issuance of the Government Resolution and the filing of the present review application. But it is quite possible, having regard to the voluminous enquiry which was necessary, that it took time to discover that the present matter was decided by relying on the bogus Government Resolution. It was also contended by Mr. Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for the respondent no.1, that this Court had granted the petitioner permission to withdraw the earlier application for condonation of delay on 9/3/2009 and for filing a fresh application. However, in spite of filing a fresh application the applicants have reviewed an old application. Smt. Dangre, learned A.G.P. for applicant, submitted that the applicants were permitted to substitute an earlier application dated 12/1/2010 by order dated 12/1/2010 and the difference in nomenclature between substitution application and filing a fresh application is not substantial. We are of the view that the revival of an earlier application after obtaining the permission, in spite of filing a fresh application, does not cause any prejudice to the respondent 4 and we do not consider it appropriate to reject the application on this ground. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the delay in filing the present review application should be condoned. The contention on behalf of the respondent no. 1 that the judgment of this Court which is sought to be reviewed does not grant relief to the respondent solely on the basis of the alleged Government Resolution is kept open for consideration at the time of decision of the review application. Application is allowed. M.C.A. St. (R) No.14093/2009 Place the matter for admission on 23/9/2011. JUDGE JUDGE Tambaskar.