1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION NO. 8 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2822 OF 2005 Hemlata Bhanudas Nikam ..Petitioner (Ori. Respondent No.1) versus The Secretary, Kala Vidya Mandir Trust, Mumbai & Ors. . ..Respondents Mrs. Sona Yusuf Baugwala for Petitioner. Ms. Varsha Palav for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. Shekhar Ingawale – AGP for State. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. DATED : 31ST JULY, 2009. P.C. : 1. The petitioner has applied for review of the Judgment dated 27th August, 2008 on the ground that the Petitioner’s Advocate could not attend the case when the matter was called out. Hence, the matter has been heard on merits. 2. The only contention raised on behalf of the Petitioner is that the appointment of the Petitioner was for a period of two years and not for a period of one year as claimed by the other side. However, the learned 2 counsel for the Review Petitioner fairly accepts that there is no appointment letter. She submits that the appointment must be taken to be two years of the advertisement. However the advertisement placed, does not refer to the period for which the post is advertised, hence there is no merit in this contention. 3. Ms. Palav the learned counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 points out that the appointment was for a period of one year and in fact the Petitioner made a fresh application for re-appointment on 1st May 2000 as a result of which the Petitioner was appointed again. Hence, there is no reason to treat the Petitioner’s appointment as having been for a period of two years. There is no merit in the Review. Dismissed. (S. A. BOBDE, J.)