1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR REVIEW) STAMP NO.18920 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.742 OF 2010 Urmila Vasantrao Patil .. Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra and ors. .. Non-Applicants Mr.R.N.Dhorde, Advocate holding for Mr.S.S.Jadhavar, Advocate for applicant Mr.D.R.Kale, A.G.P. for non-applicants No. 1 and 2 Mr.A.L.Tikle, Advocate for non-applicant No.5 (petitioner in Writ Petition) CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND S.V.GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 13th September 2010 PER COURT : 1. Since we have condoned the delay, Registry to register this civil application. This civil application is heard with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This is an application seeking review of the judgment rendered by us on 29.4.2010 allowing the Writ Petition filed by the non-applicant No.5 by quashing and setting aside the order dated 19.12.2009 and directing the Education Officer to decide the pending proposal of the petitioner in respect of seeking approval to his appointment as a Head Master of the School at Lohara and also to decide the question as to whether the transfer of the respondent No.5 therein (petitioner in Writ Petition No.6302 of 2009) has been validly cancelled. 2 3. In this civil application for review, the respondent-State has filed an affidavit-in-reply and in the affidavit-in-reply, it transpires that the proposal of the present non-applicant No.5 had already been decided by the respondents prior to the date of the judgment. In that light of the matter, therefore, the relief which the present non-applicant No.5 and petitioner in Writ Petition No.742/2010 had sought for and the directions issued by this Court pertaining to the decision on the pending proposal was infructuous when this writ petition came to be allowed by us. Since the proposal had already been decided, the directions issued by us in our judgment dated 29.4.2010 were infructuous and futile. We are informed that the non- applicant No.5 has already filed a petition in this Court challenging the order rejecting the proposal of the non-applicant No.5. In that light of the matter, no case for interference is made out and the review application is, therefore, dismissed. ( S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J.) ( P.V. HARDAS, J.) (vvr/18920.10cast)