1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Misc. Civil Application 43 of 2010 IN Writ Petition No.4337 of 2009 [decided] [Sudhir V. Dhekan Vs. The Chief Executive Officer, ZP, Yavatmal & ors.] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Ms. P.D. Rane, Adv., for the applicant-petitioner. ----- CORAM : A.H. JOSHI AND F.M. REIS, JJ. DATE : 22nd January, 2010. 1. This is an application for review of Order dated 7th December, 2009, passed by this Court [Coram : D.D. Sinha & F.M. Reis, JJ.] in Writ Petition No. 4337 of 2009. 2. The petitioner was before this Court in the said Writ Petition claiming reliefs for:- [a] a direction to the Scrutiny Committee to decide the petitioner's tribe claim within a fixed time, and [b] setting aside and / or stay of termination order dated 24th August, 2009. 3. Petitioner had claimed parity as to protection of service as granted in Writ 2 Petition Nos. 1383 of 2007 and 3342 of 2009. 4. It is seen that this Court had heard the learned Advs., for the petitioner and for the Committee, and passed order whereby this Court has not granted any relief as regards termination of services, however, issued directions to the Committee for deciding the tribe claim of the petitioner within six months. 5. Said order of limiting the relief to direction to decide petitioner's tribe claim only is sought to be reviewed in this application. 6. Heard leaned Adv., Ms. P.D. Rane for the applicant-petitioner. 7. By way of grounds of review, the petitioner has urged that:- [a] the termination order, which was challenged in the Writ Petition being illegal, issued in haste and without proper notice etc., was liable to be set aside. [b] In many similar cases, this Court had granted relief of reinstatement till completion of scrutiny by the Committee. [c] There ought to be parity in relation to interim orders as may be passed by Courts. 3 8. It is seen that the grant of protection to services pending completion of scrutiny is always dependent on the prima facie merit of the case as made out. 9. Petitioner claimed to be belonging to Halba – Scheduled Tribe and had secured the employment based on said claim and certificate way back in 1995. 10. It is seen that the termination order is dated 24th August, 2009, due to failure to apply and receive the validation of Tribe Claim. 11. The Writ Petition was filed on 5th October, 2009. 12. Admittedly, the petitioner had approached the Scrutiny Committee for verification on 5th October, 2009 in the background that the petitioner had secured the job in 1995 on the basis of tribe claim. 13. The petitioner did not punctually apply for validation, yet he expects that the Court should have protected services of such reckless person. In this background, it is obvious that Court was not with petitioner as to grant him the relief of protection of his employment. 14. It is not shown that any particular fact of the matter of petitioner's case was not 4 considered by the Court while passing the order under review. 15. Unless and until the petitioner could have succeeded in demonstrating an error apparent on the face of record either by the Court, or on the part of parties, it is not open to review the Judgment and Order passed by this Court. 16. In this background, present Review Application is devoid of merit and the same is rejected. Judge Judge |Hedau|