( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 189 OF 2010 WITH REVIEW APPLICATION (ST) NO. 28814 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 4563 OF 1996 Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth, Rahuri .. Applicant District – Ahmednagar, Through its Registrar Versus Vithal s/o. Sakharam Kadam & Another .. Respondents Shri M.N. Navandar, Advocate for the applicant. Shri T.K. Prabhakaran, Advocate for respondent No.1. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 05.05.2010 P.C. :­ 1. Adv. Shri M.N. Navandar is present for the applicant/review applicant. Adv. Shri T.K. Prabhakaran appears for respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 is formal party. ( 2 ) 2. In filing Review Application, there is delay of 42 days. For the reasons given in the application, the delay deserves to be condoned. Hence, the delay condonation application allowed; delay condoned. The Review Application is taken up for hearing immediately. 3. Adv. Shri M.N. Navandar for the applicant submitted three points. Firstly, he stated that the post of “Audio Visual Operator” had certain qualifications which were prescribed by the Maharashtra Council of Agricultural Education and Research, Pune, even prior to 1991. He pointed out that in para 15 of the judgment certain dates are wrongly mentioned by this Court and the date should have been 26.12.1984, 05.09.1986, 02.09.1989 and 27.09.1991. It appears that in the first two dates, year is wrongly mentioned. It is a clerical mistake, which can be corrected and in the first sentence in para 15 of the judgment, the dates may be read as 26.12.1984, 05.09.1986, 02.09.1989 and 27.09.1991. It is submitted by Adv. Shri Navandar that the witness of the petitioner in the Trial Court has committed error in giving admission that revised ( 3 ) qualification for the post of Audio Visual Operator had come into force on 02.10.1991 and the complainant held the requisite qualification for the post as required prior to 02.10.1991. We find reference to said admission in para 7 of the judgment of the Industrial Court. The Second point argued by Adv. Shri Navandar is that there was bar to the recruitment by the State Government from 1985 to 1989 and there was no advertisement issued between 1993 to 2003. Thirdly, it is submitted by Adv. Shri Navandar that out of total four posts, two were for open category, one post was of Scheduled Caste and one post was of Scheduled Tribe and these aspects needs to be considered by this Court in review. 4. On the other hand Adv. Shri T.K. Prabhakaran for respondent No.1 submitted that these points raised in the Review Application are something regarding which there was no pleading or evidence before the Industrial Court. He pointed out that the Writ Petition was filed against the judgment and order passed by the Industrial Court in Complaint U.L.P. No. 19 of 1992, in which present respondent No.1 has complained that there was unfair labour practice within the meaning of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of ( 4 ) Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as “M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act”). The basic ground on which the complaint was filed in the Industrial Court was that inspite of continuous appointment for the years, respondent No.1 was continued to be temporary and he was never made permanent and therefore there was unfair labour practice as per Item 6 Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act. Said item reads as under :­ “To employ employee as “badlis”, casuals or temporaries and to continue them as such for years, with the object of depriving them of the status and privileges of permanent employees.” 5. Adv. Shri Prabhakaran argued that having appointed respondent No.1 continuously from 1985 onwards, it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner/review applicant that the appointment of respondent No.1 was not legal or it was not as per reservations or that he was not holding necessary educational qualification. It cannot be said that the writ petitioner had authority to illegally appoint someone for years together but had no authority to make him permanent. ( 5 ) 6. The basic question that has arisen in the writ petition and in the Review Application is whether the petitioner University can be allowed to raise certain points for the first time in the writ petition regarding which there was no pleading or evidence led before the Trial Court. 7. After having given careful consideration to the submissions advanced by both the sides, in my opinion, the dates in para 15 deserves to be corrected and they be accordingly corrected. However, in my opinion, the admission given by the witness of the petitioner on which the Trial Court has relied upon, cannot be taken away at such late stage in Review Application. Moreover, the fact remains that from the year 1985 onwards the appointment letters were given to respondent No.1 year after year for same post, the authorities were aware of the provisions about reservation and education qualification. If we see the object of Item 6 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, as described by the Supreme Court in the case of Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation V/s. Castribe Rajya P. Karmachari Sanghatana, which is referred to in para 19 of the judgment ( 6 ) of this Court, it is clear that the view taken by this Court is correct. In this view of the matter, this review application is dismissed. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2010/MAY10/ca189.10