1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO: 191/2004 IN W.P. NO. 459/2003 (D) (Ku. Shailaja D/o Ramchandra Shukla vs. Director of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and others ) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram Court's or Judges Order appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders. .................................................................................................................................................................. CORAM: D.D. SINH A & K.J.ROHEE, JJ. DATED: 22nd February, 2008. *** Heard Shri A.P. Mamdalwar, learned counsel for the petitioner/ applicant. 2. This Review Petition is directed against the order dated 21st January, 2004 passed by us, whereby Writ Petition No. 459/2003 came to be disposed of. 3. Learned counsel for the review petitioner states that the Respondent no.5 was not eligible or qualified to be appointed on the post of full-time Lecturer in Political Science & Sociology and, therefore, the appointment of Respondent No.5 on that post by the Respondent-Management is bad in law. It is further 2 contended that the conclusion arrived at by the Division Bench in the impugned order that the Respondent No.5 was eligible and qualified is not correct and, therefore, the order may be reviewed. 4. Considered the contentions canvassed by learned counsel for petitioner. Perused the impugned order passed. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the Respondent-Management had advertised one post of full-time Lecturer in Political Science & Sociology and one post of contributory Lecturer in History & Political Science, on 9.8.2001. The learned Assistant Government Pleader pointed out to this Court at the time of hearing of the original Writ Petition, that Respondent No.5 had possessed the requisite qualification for appointment to the post of Lecturer in Political Science & Sociology in terms of advertisement and, therefore, the Division Bench of this Court concluded that the appointment of Respondent No.5 made by Respondent -Management was just, proper and sustainable in law. 5. We have asked the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether the review petitioner has placed on record the advertisement published in daily newspaper “Nav Bharat” wherein the eligibility criteria in respect 3 of candidate to be considered and appointed on the post of Lecturer in Political Science & Sociology was given, and as to whether the qualifications mentioned in the advertisement for the said post were not possessed by Respondent no.5. Learned counsel is unable to point out the copy of the said advertisement or the qualifications mentioned therein for the said post were not possessed by Respondent No.5. In absence thereof, it is difficult for us to show any indulgence in the present Review Petition. 6. Review Petition is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE sahare