1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Civil Application No. 715 of 2010 IN Misc. Civil Application [Review] St. No.10180/10 IN Writ Petition No.5171 of 2009 [decided] [Ajay Shivhari Umarkar Vs. Hutatma Smarak Samiti & ors.] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. A.S. Kilor, Adv., for the applicant. Mr. P.A. Gode, Adv., for respondent nos. 1 and 2. ----- CORAM : A.H. JOSHI AND P.B. VARALE, JJ. DATE : 01st September, 2010. Heard. Accepting the reasons stated in the application explaining the delay caused in filing of application for review to be good and sufficient, delay is condoned. Civil Application No. 715 of 2010 is allowed. Judge Judge |Hedau| 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Misc. Civil Application [Review] St. No.10180/10 IN Writ Petition No.5171 of 2009 [decided] [Ajay Shivhari Umarkar Vs. Hutatma Smarak Samiti & ors.] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. A.S. Kilor, Adv., for the applicant. Mr. P.A. Gode, Adv., for respondent nos. 1 and 2. ----- CORAM : A.H. JOSHI AND P.B. VARALE, JJ. DATE : 01st September, 2010. 1. Heard learned Adv. Mr. A.S. Kilor for the applicant and learned Adv. Mr. P.S. Gode for for respondent nos. 1 and 2. 2. Applicant prays for review of order dated 5th March, 2010 passed by Division Bench of this Court declining to interfer in the transfer order, and staying the transfer only till end of Academic Year. 3. The review is sought on the ground that the administrative reasons, which were not disclosed in the order, and were furnished in the subsequent communications, were non- existing. 3 4. While urging that during pendency of petition, the reasons are non-existing, it is urged that the vacancies, which had arisen, due to which petitioner was transferred, were filled in, and the administrative reason had ceased to exist. 5. This Court is of considered view that what was required to be considered is as to whether there existed grounds for transfer. 6. Even on showing by the petitioner, grounds existed. 7. Subsequent filling in of the vacancies does not destroy the grounds as those existed on the date of transfer. 8. Petitioner has failed to show that the order suffers from error apparent on the face. 9. In this background, Review Application has no merit, and is rejected. Judge Judge |Hedau|