1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.116 OF 2008 IN REVIEW PETITION ST.NO.25948 OF 2006 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2177 OF 1990 Sudhir Dattatraya Jadhav .. Appellant Vs. Secretary, Dnyansadhana Junior College & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.G.S. Godbole with Mr.S.S. Kanetkar for the appellant Mr.M.S. Laga for respondent nos.1 and 2 Mr.V.N. Tayade for respondent no.3 CORAM : J. N. Patel, Acting C.J., B.R.Gavai, J. DATE : February 05, 2010 P.C. : 1. The appellant challenges the order dt.19.12.2007 passed by the learned single Judge of this court thereby dismissing the review petition filed by the original petitioner. 2. The appellant had filed a review petition seeking review of the judgment dt. 29.08.06 by which the learned single Judge had confirmed the judgment and 2 order passed by the learned Tribunal dt.21.09.87. 3. Mr.Godbole, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that though the learned single Judge has found that there were errors in the order which were sought to be reviewed and that he has corrected those errors, has ultimately dismissed the review petition. He submits that when the learned single Judge found there were errors apparent in the orders, the only recourse available to the learned Judge was to recall the order and restore the petition. 4. From the perusal of the order it appears that part of the order which was corrected by the learned single Judge was that the petitioner did not possess the necessary qualifications in July 1987 i.e. the date on which he was subsequently interviewed. However, it has been specifically found by the learned single Judge that the initial appointment of the petitioner dt. 20.686 was purely on temporary basis and admittedly on the date on which initial appointment was made, the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualification. 5. As held by the Apex Court in the case of Harpal Kaur Chahal (Smt.) vs. Director, Punjab Instructions, Punjab and Another reported in 1995 Supp. (4) Supreme Court Cases 706, the relevant date for considering the eligibility of the candidate is the last date of receipt of the applications. In any case, since at the time of earlier appointment of the appellant, the 3 appellant did not possess the requisite qualifications, his appointment was purely on temporary basis and did not vest any right in him. In that view of the matter, no error has been committed by the learned single Judge in dismissing the review petition in as much as, even after considering the material which was corrected in review, ultimately the result was nothing else than to dismiss the petition. 6. Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE) (B.R.GAVAI, J)