1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD REVIEW APPLICATION NO.78 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.6067 OF 2009 The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad through its authorized Officer, Shri Shivaji s/o Balasaheb Patil and anr. ..Applicants Versus Aakashrao s/o Anurath Lokhande and anr. ..Respondents Mr.S.B.Ghute, Advocate for applicants Mr.Ajit Zarekar, Advocate holding for Mr.N.V.Gaware, Advocate for respondent No.1 – original petitioner in W.P. Mr.P.P.More, A.G.P. for respondent No.2 CORAM : P.V.HARDAS AND S.V.GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 29th July 2010 PER COURT : 1. This is an application seeking review of the judgment rendered in Writ Petition No.6067 of 2009 which was decided along with Writ Petition Nos.6085 of 2009 and 6067 of 2009. It would be necessary at this stage to refer to paragraph 5 of the said judgment. “5. Learned Counsel for respondents no.2 & 3 very fairly brought to our notice the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition Nos. 6828/2008, 677/2009, 5622/2008, 6466/2008, 7024/2009, 4898/2009 and 4900/2009, to which one of us (P.V.Hardas, J.) was a member. In the light of the said judgment, learned Counsel for respondents no.2 & 3 has 2 stated that the petitioners in the present petitions are eligible and their marks also now stand increased and respondents no.2 & 3 would be issuing appointment orders to the petitioners within a period of four weeks from today. We accept the aforesaid statement as an undertaking to the Court.” Thus, by virtue of the statement made on behalf of learned Counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 that the petitioners in all the petitions were eligible, the Court allowed the petitions. 2. We have heard Mr.S.B.Ghute, learned Counsel for the applicants/original respondents No.2 and 3, Mr.Ajit Zarekar, holding for Mr.N.V.Gaware, learned Counsel for respondent No.1 and Mr.P.P.More, learned Assistant Government Pleader on behalf of respondent No.2. Learned Counsel for the applicants states that the select list was in a sealed envelope at the time of hearing of the said writ petitions and, therefore, the statement came to be made by respondents No.2 and 3 that the petitioner in Writ Petition No.6067 of 2009 was eligible. Upon opening the sealed envelope, it transpires that the petitioner in Writ Petition No.6067/2009 is not eligible to be appointed as the petitioner is not in the select list but is in the wait list. The aforesaid position is also not controverted on behalf of the respondents. In that light of the matter, therefore, the entire complexion insofar as the relief to the petitioner in Writ Petition No.6067 of 2009 is concerned is altered. 3 3. We, accordingly, review our judgment and hold that the petitioner in Writ Petition No.6067 of 2009 is not entitled for the relief and the petition, therefore, would stand dismissed. In respect of the other two petitions, the petitioners therein are duly qualified and eligible and accordingly, appointment orders to those petitioners have been duly issued. 4. The judgment rendered by us accordingly stands corrected to the extent indicated above. Review Application is accordingly allowed with no order as to costs. ( S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J.) ( P.V.HARDAS, J.) (vvr/78.10ra)