1611mca484.11.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.484 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.5108 OF 2009 (D) KU. HASTREKHA MOHANLAL BORKAR V/S ZP, GONDIA THR. ITS CEO AND ORS ........................................................................................................................................................ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ........................................................................................................................................................ Shri A.S.Mardikar, Adv. for the Applicant. Shri A.Y.Kapgate, Adv. for the R-1 & 3. AGP for R-2. Ms.Taiwade, AGP for R-4. Shri S.V.Sirpurkar, Adv. for R-5. CORAM: B.P.DHARMADHIKARI & P.D. KODE, JJ. DATE: 16. NOVEMBER, 2011. Review of the judgment of this Court dated 21.12.2010 is sought on the ground that there is no question of consideration of claim of respondent no.5 as she did not submit the necessary certificate showing that she belongs to Non Creamy Layer along with her application. Support is being taken from the document annexed as Annexure-4 to show that there while mentioning Non Creamy Layer Certificate, remark in negative has been put implying thereby that such certificate was not produced. The signature of respondent no.5 on that form and her undertaking is also relied upon for the said purpose. Shri A.Y.Kapgate, Adv. for the respondent .....2/- 1611mca484.11.odt 2 nos.1 and 3 states that when Zilla Parishad received list initially the name of the respondent no.5 did not figure in it. However, later on, revised list was received and in it, the respondent no.5 was mentioned. The learned AGP for the respondent no.2; Ms.Taiwade, AGP for the respondent no.4 and Shri S.V.Sirpurkar, Adv. for the respondent no.5 opposed the prayer made by the applicant. Shri S.V.Sirpurkar, Adv. invites our attention to the form filled in by the respondent no.5 to show that there the possession of Non Creamy Layer Certificate was disclosed. He contends that on the basis of that information the respondent no.4-MKCL has prepared Annexure. on which the Petitioner/applicant has placed reliance and while preparing the same, there has been an error. With the assistance of the respective Counsel, we have perused the papers. The basic advertisement in response to which the petitioner/applicant and respondent no.5 had submitted their respective applications vide its Condition No.7, does not clearly reveal the requirement of Non Creamy Layer Certificate. On the contrary, it creates some confusion as it encompasses the candidate falling in advance and progressive category and it requires them to file certificate of belonging to Creamy Layer. The language employed uses the affirmative word. Our attention has also been drawn to the general conditions particularly Condition No.8 in advertisement. That condition only contemplates that the candidate has to submit Non Creamy Layer Certificate. Even form filled in by the respondent .....3/- 1611mca484.11.odt 3 no.5 does not specifically stipulate that such Non Creamy Layer Certificate should be submitted along with the application. On the contrary, Clause-6 therein obliges her to submit original of all certificates mentioned by her in her application at interview. Our attention has been invited to note appearing below Annexure-4 to urge that it requires a candidate belonging to the Nomadic Tribes, OBC etc. to submit Non Creamy Layer Certificate. However, again it does not state that the certificate must be filed along with the application form. In this view of matter, we find that through this review, disputed questions of fact, are sought to be revised. We are not in a position to take cognizance thereof. Hence, the review application is rejected. JUDGE JUDGE BrWankhede ...../-