1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.923 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.761 OF 2000(D) (JITENDRA VISHNUPANT GHARAD...VS..MEMBER, UNIVERSITY & COLLEGE TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. A.S. Kilor, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. A.Y. Kapgate, Advocate for Respondents No.3 and 4. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : FEBRUARY 10, 2011. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this application the applicant seeks a review of the order dated 20th July, 2010 in Writ Petition No.761 of 2000. 3. It appears, on hearing the parties and on perusal of the order dated 20th July, 2010 which is sought to be reviewed, that this Court dismissed the writ petition mainly on two grounds. This Court considered the statement made by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner/ applicant did not hold the requisite qualifications to teach the college students and the termination was upheld by the College Tribunal. The second ground was that it was found by the Tribunal that the petitioner/ applicant was not a confirmed employee so as to take the benefit of Statute 53. 2 4. The learned counsel for the applicant rightly points out that one of the statements of facts on which the Court relied for dismissing the writ petition is disputed question of facts to which the Tribunal has not adverted its mind. The learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the statement of facts that the applicant does not hold the requisite qualifications to teach the college students is incorrect and since the order dated 20th July, 2010 is based on that incorrect statement, the order dated 20th July, 2010 needs to be reviewed. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that this Court should decline to interfere with the order dated 20.07.2010 by exercising power of review as the statement of fact made by the petitioner/ applicant in paragraph 4 of the review application is palpably incorrect. Though Mr. Kilor, the learned counsel for the applicant admits this position and seeks leave to delete paragraph 4 of the civil application, the review application cannot be dismissed on the ground that an incorrect statement of fact is made in paragraph 4 of the review application as the said fact does not have any bearing with the facts of the case and the issues involved therein. The judgments reported in (1994)1 SCC 1 and (2010) 2 SCC 114 and relied on by the counsel for the respondents, cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case as they are distinguishable on facts. 6. Since the order dated 20th July, 2010 is based on a statement of fact which is disputed and on which there is no adjudication by the Tribunal, it is necessary to set aside the order dated 20th July, 2010 and fix the writ petition No.761 of 2000 for final hearing subject to payment of costs of Rs.one 3 thousand in the High Court Bar Library, Nagpur within a period of one week from the date of this order. 7. Hence, the order dated 20.07.2010 in Writ Petition No.761 of 2000 is set aside and the matter may be fixed for hearing in case costs of Rs.one thousand are deposited as directed herein above. The Misc. Civil Application is allowed in the aforesaid terms and disposed of. JUDGE RR..