1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR ... CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1083/2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 390/2008 ( Harish s/o Tryambak Tayade vs. State of Maharashtra and others ) Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders of directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order Mr. R G Puranik, Adv. for applicant *** C ORAM : A.H.JOSHI & A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATED : 26 th February ,2010. PER COURT: (PER BHANGALE,J.) 1 The instant application is moved so as to review and recall the order passed on 17th July 2008 in Writ Petition No. 390/2008 passed by the Division Bench of this Court (to which one of us was a Member), whereby the petition was dismissed. 2 We have heard the submissions at the Bar and perused the order under review. We have also gone through the ruling cited by learned Advocate for the applicant in the case of Anil Kumar Gupta & others vs. State of U.P. & others reported in (1995) 5 SCC 173. The ruling by the Apex Court was concerning direction in respect of creation of thirty four seats having regard to facts and circumstances of that case and the Apex Court had restricted its direction as to creation of additional seats to current admissions only and not as a permanent feature. The ruling would not be of any help to the applicant in any manner as there is no apparent illegality or impropriety in the order sought to the reviewed. We had for the sake of propriety and utmost care, issued direction to 2 the Respondent No.2 to ensure that posts which are reserved for candidates belonging to reserved categories, must be mentioned in the advertisement for the future with hope and trust that respondents will ensure that advertisement in future will specifically mention posts which are reserved for candidates belonging to reserved categories. 3 For an administrative body to function effectively, certain measure of freedom is necessary. What is known as principle of “ freeplay in the joints” is always permissible in administrative functions. Merely because respondent No.2 had contended that the horizontal reservation list of female and male candidates was prepared separately would not furnish a valid ground exceptional and meritorious enough so as to recall the order in question passed by us, particularly when the authority acted within its constitutional or statutory limits. The problems of Government or administrative authorities are practical. Inadvertent errors of Government authority are not subject of our judicial review. There was neither any irrationality nor perversity in the order under review to exercise our exceptional extraordinary jurisdiction to recall the order. 4 For the reasons afore-stated, the application is dismissed. No order as to costs. JUDGE. JUDGE. sahare