294cao627.11.odt 1 . IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR C.A.O.No.627 of 2011 in MCA St.No.6844 of 2011 in Writ Petition No. 3066 of 2010 (D) (Ms Durga Shamraoji Wankhede .vs. State and Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders Coram: D. D. Sinha and A. P. Bhangale, JJ. Date : 29/04/2011. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.627/2011 Heard Mr. Shashikant Borkar, Adv. for the applicant and Mr.N.R.Rode, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent nos. 1 and 2. For the reasons stated in the Civil Application, the delay caused in filing the Misc. Civil Application for review is condoned. The application is allowed accordingly. MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION ST.NO.6844/2011 Heard. This Misc. Civil Application is filed by the applicant for reviewing the order 294cao627.11.odt 2 . dt.8.2.2011 passed by this Court whereby Writ Petition No.3066 of 2010 came to be disposed of. Considered the contentions canvassed by the learned Counsel and perused the order. The original Petition was directed against the order dt.31.5.2010 passed by the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Nagpur whereby approval granted to the petitioner to the post of Supervisor came to be cancelled on the ground that the petitioner was neither a seniormost teacher nor had five years' satisfactory service record. The petitioner has also made no specific averment in the petition in this regard. In that view of the matter, the petition came to be dismissed. Counsel for the petitioner/applicant has placed reliance on the judgments of this Court reported in 2009 (6) Mh.L.J. 478 (Bhagwant Sheshrao Borale .vs. Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Buldhana and Ors. and 2009 (4) ALL MR 118, Ashok Yashwant Nikam .vs. Chatrapati Shgivaji Vidya Prasarak Mandal, Nasik and Ors. We have perused both the judgments cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. However, in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, the ratio and law declared in those judgments is not attracted. The order of Education Officer came 294cao627.11.odt 3 . to be passed on the ground that the petitioner was not eligible. In that view of the matter, no case is made out for showing indulgence. Hence, the Misc. Civil Application for review is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE jais