1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. Misc. Civil Application [Review] No. 966 of 2007 IN Writ Petition No.2316 of 2007 [decided] [Rashriya Vaidyak Prasarak Mandal & another Vs. Dir. Of Ayurved & another] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. A.M. Ghare, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. A.S. Fulzele, AGP for respondent no.1. ----- CORAM : A.H. JOSHI AND R.C.CHAVAN,JJ. DATE : 28th September,2007. 1. Heard. 2. By this application, the order passed by this Court on 18th September, 2007 is sought to be reviewed. 3. Though various grounds are raised for review, the crux of the matter appears to be as follows :- 1. .....Thus the Hon'ble Court has passed an order dismissing the Writ Petition on an issue which is never raised by any of the parties, which is an error apparent on the face of 2 record. Thus the impugned order may kindly be quashed and set aside. II. That during the course of arguments this Hon'ble Court has made a specific query to the Respondent No. 1, where do they possess jurisdiction to appoint any person as In Charge Principal ? It was accepted that there is no such jurisdiction. Having accepted this position on record, this Hon'ble Court should have quashed and set aside the order. However, this Hon'ble Court has observed that by impugned order interim arrangement is made by the authorities of state so that distribution of the salary goes on smoothly, which in fact not the subject matter of controversy was at all. ... and that the order impugned in the Writ Petition resulted in giving an order of appointment instead of fairly giving authorization to draw Pay-Bills. 4. This Court, in its order dated 18th September, 2007, recorded certain categorical observations, which are as follows:- ....There are no rights created by the order. The order also does not curtail anybody's right. The Director has made the order impugned in the petition for disbursement of the salary for which grant-in-aid is given by the Government. ..... 5. The petitioner's apprehension that 3 authorities had no power to appoint someone as a Principal, and could have at the most authorized a person to sign the pay bills, is duly considered and ruled upon by this Court, holding that no new rights are created. 6. In these premises, though the order passed by this Court on 18th September, 2007 leads to a grievance of the petitioner that the petitioner did not get the desired result in the petition, and the said order is against the petitioner, no ground is made out for review. The error alleged is that this Court did not properly comprehend the issue raised in the petition. This is no ground for review. 7. Application is dismissed. Judge Judge |Hedau|