( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL (REVIEW) APPLICATION NO. 112 OF 2007 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 3884 OF 2003 Fakirchand s/o Sanduji Thorat PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and others RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. Pradeep Deshmukh, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. D.V. Tele, AGP for the respondents/State. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 14th July, 2009] PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel and learned AGP. 2. The petitioner seeks review of order rendered by learned Single Judge of this Court (A.B. Naik, J.) on 07-01-2004. The learned Single Judge (A.B. Naik, J.) held that it was boundant duty of the petitioner/complainant to prove that he did serve ( 2 ) continuously with the respondent and completed more than 240 days. It has been observed by the learned Single Judge that the complainant had obtained driving license during pendency of the earlier complaint and had worked as a driver for a short duration of four (4) months between January to April, 1994 and from November, 1994 to January, 1995. It was, therefore, held that such duty as a driver for short period could not confer right on him to seek appointment as a driver. The petitioner was previously employed as a daily wager. His service was continued by order of the Court. The learned Single Judge held that mere completion of the work for 240 days will not be of avail to the petitioner in view of “M/s Haryana State FCCW Store Ltd. And another v. Ram Niwas and another” 2002 (5) JT (SC) 106. It is contended by Mr. Deshmukh that there is factual error in the said judgement because during the relevant period between 1993 to 1994, the petitioner had worked for more than 240 days continuously. The petitioner was not initially appointed as a driver. The learned Single Judge referred to observations of this Court in L.P.A. ( 3 ) No. 65/2003. 3. Considering the text of the order sought to be reviewed, I am of the opinion that the review application is outside the parameters enumerated in Section 114 and Order-XLVII Rule-1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The review jurisdiction cannot be invoked by impliedly invoking the appellate powers. Considering these aspects, the review application is dismissed. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/CA112-07