1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. C.A.O. NO. 238/09 IN M.C.A. ST. NO. 492/09 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 790 OF 1990 Radheshyam Ganpat Panchabudhe .vs. Municipal Council, Tirora, Gondia & others ________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Court's or Judge's orders. Registrars orders. Mr. A.S. Mardikar, Advocate for the applicant, Mr. M.I. Dhatrak, Advocate for the respondent no.1, Mr. J.P. Pendsey, Advocate for the respondent no.2. CORAM : S.A. BOBDE & F.M. REIS, JJ. DATED : JUNE 23, 2009. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. In the circumstances of the case, we do not find sufficient cause to condone the delay of a period of 17 years in approaching this Court particularly when the applicant had full knowledge of the judgment of this Court and in fact he was the petitioner in the case in which the judgment was delivered. There is thus no merit in the application. It is hereby dismissed. MISC. CIVIL AAPPLICATION ST. NO. 492/09 : Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. This is an application for review. The applicant has applied for review of judgment of Division Bench of this Court delivered on 9.4.1992. The Division Bench held that the applicant was 2 appointed on 15.9.1987 and the respondent no.2 was appointed on 15.9.1987 vide paragraph no.1 of the judgment. In penultimate paragraph, the Division Bench observed as follows :- “.........However, we direct the respondents to give the petitioners seniority with effect from 30.9.1989 which was the date of the last appointment.” As a result of this, though the petitioners were appointed within a gap of a month from each other, their seniority became liable to be reckoned from 30.9.1989. This was done because that was the date of the last appointment, the petitioners having been appointed on several occasions in the past. The petitioner here, who was one of the the petitioners in that Writ Petition did not demur at any point of time nor was there any protest by him about the fixation of the seniority by this Court. Only recently sometime in the year 2006 when he tried to stake his claim of seniority over the respondent no.2 by reason of the gap of about one month, he was confronted by the Education Officer with the finding of this Court. Against that order, he filed the Writ Petition before the learned Single Judge who declined to interfere in view of the order of Division Bench of this Court referred to earlier dated 9.4.1992. Shri A.S. Mardikar, learned Counsel for the applicant, submitted that the learned Single Judge has observed in his judgment that the petitioner would be at liberty to take such measures as may be advised. That 3 may be so, but that observation of the learned Single Judge cannot be treated by the petitioner as one intended to condone the delay and laches on the part of the petitioner. Indeed, that cannot be so since this issue can only be properly considered by the Court before whom the motion for review is made. The order of the Division Bench dated 9.4.1992 fixing the petitioner’s seniority has been in existence for almost 17 years without any protest or demur by any of the parties who have served on that basis for the entire period. We do not in the circumstances consider it appropriate to entertain any challenge by way of review or otherwise to that order. The Review Petition is thus liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE. J.