1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7711 OF 2010 IN CIVIL (Review) APPLICATION St.No.4531 OF 2006 WRIT PETITION NO.91 OF 1996 Subhash s/o Panditrao Pawar Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra & others Respondents Mr. S.B.Talekar, advocate for the applicant. Mr.Mr.K.G.Patil, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1. Mr.D.R.Irale Patil, advocate for Respondents No.2 to 4. CORAM: B.R.GAVAI AND S.V.GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE :8 th July, 2010. P.C.: 1 This is an application for condonation of delay occurred in filing application for review. The Civil Application for Review is delayed by four years. 2 The application is vehemently opposed by Shri Irale Patil. advocate appearing for Respondents No.2 to 4. 3 Taking into consideration long pendency of the matter, Civil Application is allowed. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA) (B.R.GAVAI) JUDGE JUDGE ******* adb/ca771110 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL (Review) APPLICATION St.No.4531 OF 2006 WRIT PETITION NO.91 OF 1996 Subhash s/o Panditrao Pawar Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra & others Respondents Mr. S.B.Talekar, advocate for the applicant. Mr.Mr.K.G.Patil, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1. Mr.D.R.Irale Patil, advocate for Respondents No.2 to 4. CORAM: B.R.GAVAI AND S.V.GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE :8 th July, 2010. P.C.: 1 Review Application is taken up for admission. 2 Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the judgment under review, this Court has failed to take into consideration the Government Circular dated 18 th June, 1997, which provides that the post in question was required to be filled in by promotion. He, therefore, submits that an error apparent on the face of record has occurred. 3 While considering the rival contentions, what has weighed with the Court was that the posts in question were filled in on temporary basis by deputation from the employees of Zilla Parishad and in that view of the matter, the Court found that there was no merit in the challenge. 3 4 Insofar as the contention that the Government Circular of 1997 was not considered is concerned, from the perusal of the judgment, it does not appear that the said ground was raised in the argument before the learned Division Bench. 5 Though it is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the said ground was raised, we are unable to accept the said contention, inasmuch as, if that was the position, the petitioner could have always moved the same bench for speaking to the minutes of the order. Having not done so, it would not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to contend in that regard. 6 In that view of the matter, no case is made out for review. Civil Application stands rejected. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA) (B.R.GAVAI) JUDGE JUDGE ******* adb/ca771110