16.caw.571-10 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.571 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITON NO.7531 OF 2009 Shri Karbhari Bhila Bachhav. ..Applicant. Versus Shri. Gunjal Popat Bhaurao and others. ..Respondents. ... Mr.S.S. Kulkarni, Advocate for the Applicant. Ms.Kumud A. Bhatia, Advocate for the Respondent No.1. Mr.V.S. Gokhale, AGP, for Respondent Nos.4 to 7. ... CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : FEBRUARY 25, 2010. P.C. 1. This Civil Application is taken out by the applicant who was not a party in the Writ Petition No.7531 of 2009, for review of the order dated 5.1.2010. The ground of review is that this Court was falsely informed when this case was decided in Writ Petition No.7531 of 2009 that the post of Lab Assistant was vacant. According to the applicant that post was not vacant. 2. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the applicant 16.caw.571-10 2 as also the learned Advocate appearing for the original petitioner. From the documents filed by the applicant it appears that the order was made on 18th July, 2007 appointing the applicant as a Lab Assistant. It further appears that, that order was not implemented by the Principal of the Management. Therefore, the applicant filed Writ Petition No. 9719/2009 in this Court. That Writ Petition has been disposed of by the Devision Bench of this Court by an order dated 27th November, 2009. By that order, respondent No.5 in that Petition, who was Project Officer, is directed to hear the petitioner and all parties likely to be affected and thereafter take a decision as to whether the appointment of the applicant as Lab Assistant is legal and in case it is held that the appointment is legal allow him to join to the post. Admittedly that enquiry is still pending with the Project Officer and there is no finding recorded by him that the appointment of the applicant as Lab Assistant is valid and, therefore, there is no order from the Project Officer allowing the petitioner to join the post. From these events, it is clear that on 5.1.2010 when we made the order for filling in the post of Lab Assistant, the post was actually lying vacant though it is true that the 16.caw.571-10 3 applicant was claiming that he has already been appointed to that post but the validity or otherwise of that claim as directed by this Court was yet not adjudicated by the Project Officer. The question of filling-in the post of Lab Assistant arises only if the post is vacant. Therefore, even if the post is filled by the Management by appointing somebody other than the applicant pursuant to the order of this Court dated 5.1.2010, that appointment would be subject to the order dated 27.11.2009 passed in Writ Petition No.9719 of 2009. In other words, in case, the Project Officer holds that the appointment of the applicant is valid and he is entitled to join the post, any person appointed to that post pursuant to the order dated 5.1.2010 will have to vacate the post. In this view of the matter, therefore, there is no reason to review the order dated 5.1.2010. Application is rejected. (D.K. DESHMUKH,J.) (A.R. JOSHI, J.)