1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Misc. Civil Application (Review) No.1034 of 2009 In Writ Petition No.2874 of 2008 (D) Devidas s/o Vitthal Kale v. Sanjay Haribhau Indane and others) Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order Shri P.S. Patil, Advocate for Applicant. Shri A. Dhore, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Shri D.M. Kale, Advocate for Respondent No.3. Shri B.M. Lonare, AGP for Respondent No.4. Coram : R.K. Deshpande, J. Dated : 6 th September, 2010 This Misc. Civil Application seeks review of the judgment and order dated 20-3-2009 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.2874 of 2008. The said writ petition was preferred by respondent No.1 and it was allowed by setting aside the order passed by the Divisional Social Welfare officer, Amravati Division, Amravati, as well as the orders dated 1-7-2006/12-7-2006 issued by the petitioner terminating the services of respondent No.1. This Court further directed the Management to reinstate respondent No.1 in service and to pay full back wages to him. This Court proceeds on the footing that respondent No.1 2 was appointed on 3-6-1996, as is apparent from reading of para 17 of the judgment. Shri Patil, learned counsel for the applicant, has urged that respondent No.1 has himself placed on record of Writ Petition No.875 of 2001 a statement indicating that he was appointed on 1-7-1999 and, therefore, the finding recorded by this Court that respondent No.1 was appointed on 3-6-1996 was not correct. According to him, the order of appointment dated 3-6-1996 was fabricated. It is not in dispute that Writ Petition No.2874 of 2008 was decided on 20-3-2009. However, the fact – now being urged – was not brought to the notice of this Court. In view of this, it cannot be said that this Court was wrong in holding that respondent No.1 was appointed on 3-6-1996. Thus, there is no error apparent on the face of record in recording such a finding. Shri Patil, learned counsel for the applicant, has further urged that this Court in para 10 of the judgment proceeded on the footing that the question of qualification being possessed by respondent No.1 was governed by Clause 43(3)(d) of the Special Code for the Schools for Handicapped, 1985. He submits that the said Code was not applicable and in fact the position was clarified in the Code issued in the year 1997. According to him, the Code of 1997 prescribes the qualifications of SSC, D.Ed. However, respondent No.1 was possessing the qualifications of B.Com., B.Ed. and, therefore, he was not qualified. After going through the entire judgment, it does not seem that this question was raised by the applicant in Writ Petition No.2874 of 2008. The latter Code was issued in the year 1997 and the petition was decided on 20-3-2009. When specific question was 3 put to Shri Patil as to whether this Code of 1997 was produced before the Court, he submits that it was not produced when the judgment was delivered. In view of the above, no fault can be found with the findings recorded by this Court. The Misc. Civil Application has no substance and the same is, therefore, dismissed. Judge pdl