1 rp35.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION NO.35 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.848 OF 2003 Prabhakar Bichu Gawad and Ors. .. Petitioners. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr.N.V.Bandiwadekar for the petitioners. Mr.S.P.Thorat APP for respondent no.3. CORAM : NARESH H PATIL & MRS.MRIDULA R BHATKAR, JJ DATED : 24TH JUNE, 2011. P.C. (PER MRS.MRIDULA R BHATKAR, J.) 1. The review petition is preferred by the Petitioners against the order passed by this court on 21st April, 2009. The Petitioners were working under Respondent No.3 and they have filed the petition for regularisation of their services on the post of Extension Officers in the Education Department from the date of their initial appointment. At the time of their appointment they were holding educational qualification of S.S.C. and D.Ed, however, for the appointment of the Extension officer, higher qualification of B.Com or B.A. and B.Ed was required. The petitioners acquired necessary educational qualification during their services. However, when the posts of Extension officer (Education) fell vacant at that time the petitioners were not having the required experience of three years in teaching, therefore, they were appointed temporarily as the Extension Officer as stop-gap arrangement. The petitioners thereafter pursued department and also filed writ petition for S 2 rp35.11 their absorption and appointment as the Extension Officer. The Government by G.R. dated 24th September, 2002 admitted the claim of the petitioners and their services were regularised from the date of G.R. i.e. 24th September, 2002. However, the petitioners state that their service as the Extension Officer rendered earlier to 2002 i.e. since 1984 onwards be regularised. They demanded that they should be regularised and their services be recognised as Extension Officer from the date of their initial appointment as Extension Officer. Writ Petition No.848 of 2003 was filed by them challenging the G.R., however, the said petition was dismissed by this court vide order dated 21st April, 2009. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has filed review petition on the limited ground that on 21st April, 2009 when the petition was heard this bench made noting that : "Heard. 2. The matter is closed for judgment in view of the fact that the learned counsel for the parties want to tender compilation of authorities on which they place reliance.” Learned counsel pointed out that the petitioners within couple of days furnished the decision of this court in Writ Petition No.2324 of 2002 decided on 8th April, 2009 by this court wherein the petitioners in the said petition were facing same situation and the same claim and they were working under Zilla Parishad and they got the order of regularisation of their appointment notionally from the date of their initial appointment. The grievance of the petitioners in this review petition is that the said ruling was not considered while passing the 3 rp35.11 order on 21st April, 2009. Learned counsel has pointed out that as per the noting the petitioners were expecting that the matter will be fixed for pronouncement of judgment and one date will be given, however, as per the date fixed which is appearing in the order, the judgment was delivered on the same date i.e. 21st April, 2009. 2. Learned counsel appearing for respondent no.3 - Zilla Parishad has submitted that in fact Zilla Parishad had recommended the claim of the petitioners to the Government, however, the Government had turned down their claim. In view of the judgment passed by this court the petitioners has no case for review. 3. It is true that the judgment of this court dated 8th April, 2009 is not referred in our previous order so at this stage we looked into the said judgment, in which, the claim of the petitioners in Writ Petition No.2324 of 2002 was considered notionally and the main prayer is in fact rejected. In the judgment for which the review is prayed, is decided on merits based on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Uma Devi and Others (2006) 4 SCC 1 and State of Haryana and Others Vs. Navneet Verma (2008) 2 SCC 65 and the judgment which is relied by the petitioners, concessional parity is given and, therefore, it is not the case that the review can be allowed. Hence the review petition is rejected. (MRS.MRIDULA R BHATKAR,J.) (NARESH H PATIL,J.)