1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD REVIEW APPLICATION NO.41 OF 2009 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO.6623 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.5235 OF 2008 1. Baban S/o.Uttamrao Shendge, Age-38 years, Occu-Service, R/o. At Post : Tugaon, Tq. and Dist.Osmanabad 2. Balaji S/o.Babasaheb Veer, Age-39 years, Occu-Service, R/o. At Post. Alni, Tq. And Dist. Osmanabad 3. Mahadeo S/o.Ramdas Mule, Age-39 years, Occu-Service, R/o. At Mulewadi, Post.Kini, Tq. And Dist. Osmanabad 4. Surekha Laxman Padwal, Age-44 years, Occu-Service, R/o. At Zade Galli, Osmanabad, Tq. And Dist. Osmanabad 5. Arvind S/o.Ramrao Jadhav, Age-35 years, Occu-Service, R/o. At Post. Agalgaon, Tq.Barshi, Dist.Solapur APPLICANTS VERSUS 2 1. The State of Maharashtra Through its Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 2. The Divisional Deputy Director of Education, Latur Division Latur. 3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad, Dist.Osmanabad 4. The Chief Officer, Municipal Council Osmanabad, Tq. And Dist. Osmanabad 5. Akhila Begum Abdul Karim, Age-55 years, Occu-Service, R/o.Municipal School No.7, Osmanabad, Dist. Osmanabad 6. Baby W/o.Bhimrao Salunkhe, Age-56 years, Occu-Service, R/o.Municipal School No.21, Osmanabad, Dist.Osmanabad. 7. Sangita Sudhakar Chinchpurkar, Age-35 years, Occu-Service, R/o.Municipal School No.18, Osmanabad, Dist.Osmanabad. 8. Sunanda Venkatrao Kulkarni, Age-38 years, Occu-Service, R/o.Municipal School No.13, Osmanabad, Dist.Osmanabad. 9. Jayshree Manikrao Mane, Age-42 years, Occu-Service, 3 R/o.Municipal School No.16, Osmanabad, Dist.Osmanabad 10. Manjusha Manikrao Bhutekar, Age-34 years, Occu-Service, R/o.Municipal School No.24, Osmanabad, Dist.Osmanabad. 11. Suresh S/o.Anandrao Gaikwad, Age-30 years, Occu-Service, R/o.Municipal School No.3, Osmanabad, Dist.Osmanabad 12. Lahu Sukhdeo Lomte, Age-34 years, Occu-Service, R/o.Municipal School No.22, Osmanabad, Dist.Osmanabad. 13. Sham Arjunrao Lekurwale, Age-30 years, Occu-Service, R/o.Municipal School No.18, Osmanabad, Dist.Osmanabad 14. Sangita Kalyan Shinde, Age-42 years, Occu-Service, R/o.Municipal School No.16, Osmanabad, Dist.Osmanabad. RESPONDENTS Mr.P.S.Dighe, h/f.R.L.Kute, learned counsel for applicants. Mr.V.B.Ghatge, learned AGP for respondent no.1 and 2 Mr.P.R.Baraskar, learned counsel for respondent no.3 Mr.R.V.Naiknaware, learned counsel for respondent no.4 Mr.V.M.Humbe, learned counsel for respondent no.5 to 14 (CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.) DATE : 21/08/2009 4 PER COURT : 1. This is an application filed by the applicants who are said to be intervenors in the petition, seeks review of the order of this Court dated 16/02/2009. Before we advert to the order of which review is sought for, it would be necessary to refer to the prayers made in the petition. Writ petition no.5235/2008 has been filed by the petitioners therein challenging the order declaring them surplus and absorbing them as surplus in the Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad. The petitioners were originally working with Municipal Council, Osmanabad, but as stated by us on account of being rendered surplus, their services came to be transferred to Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad. The aforesaid order rendering them surplus as well as transferring them to the Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad is the subject matter of challenge in the petition. We are informed that no interim orders are operating in the writ petition of which review is sought for. 2. By virtue of this application, review is sought for by the applicants, as this Court has directed that the present respondents i.e. original petitioners be absorbed in the vacant posts existing in Municipal Council, Osmanabad. In other words, by filing the civil application, the respondents/original petitioners had sought for their repatriation from Zilla Parishad Osmanabad to Municipal Council, Osmanabad. The applicants to this civil application i.e. review application being aggrieved by the said directions have filed the present review application. The present applicants came to be appointed in the year 1993 as teachers in the Municipal Council, 5 Osmanabad. Thereafter a writ petition came to be filed at the behest of present applicants as well as some other employees in the writ petition no.4077/1995 praying therein for regularization of their services and grant of pay scales to them. Pursuant thereto, the proposal of the petitioners for regularization came to be rejected by the appropriate authority on the ground that the petitioners had not obtained D.Ed. qualification. Accordingly Civil application no. 2635/1998 came to be filed by the present applicants seeking directions to be rendered for Postal D.Ed. The aforesaid civil application came to be allowed. Ultimately the Division Bench of this Court, by its order dated 16/07/2003, disposed of the writ petition observing therein that as per the statement made on behalf of the Municipal Council, Osmanabad, the cases of the petitioners in the said petition had been rendered to the Director of Municipal Administation i.e. Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division Aurangabad for necessary approval and appropriate orders were issued in their favour. The Division Bench of this Court therefore opined that nothing is survive in the petition and accordingly dispose of the said writ petition. It appears that by order dated 15/02/2007, the services of the petitioners were directed to be regularized by the Director of Municipal Administration. Since the directions which has been issued by this Court in the said writ petition i.e. W.P. No. 4077/1995 were not complied with, a contempt petition came to be filed. In the contempt petition, the statement came to be made on behalf of Municipal Council, Osmanabad that there was reduction in the strength of the teachers and in the light of that statement, 6 learned Single Judge of this Court in Contempt Petition No.305/2007 directed respondents no.3 and 4 therein to submit a proposal to respondent no.1 and 2 therein for absorption of the petitioners within a period of 2 weeks from the date of order i.e. 09/01/2007. The learned Single Judge, in exercise of the contempt jurisdiction also directed respondent no.1 and 2 to consider the said proposal and to take proper decision within a period of 3 weeks thereof. The said contempt petition was kept pending. Meanwhile by order dated 08/02/2008, the Deputy Director, rejected the proposal of the petitioners on the ground that since Municipal Council, Osmanabad had appointed the petitioners in the contempt petition, it was the responsibility of the Municipal Council, Osmanabad for their absorption. 3. It is apparent to us that the Division Bench as well as the Learned Single Judge had directed the respondents to consider the case of the present applicants for absorption. The contention of Shri.Humbe, learned counsel for the petitioners that the applicants have been appointed in total disregard of the recruitment norms and therefore by the dicta laid down by Supreme Court in State of Karnataka versus Umadevi and others, 2006(4) SCC, the applicants are not entitled to claim regularization, is not now open in the light of the orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No.4077/1995 as well as by the learned Single Judge exercising contempt jurisdiction. It is obvious to us that when the order of the review is sought for came to be passed, our attention was not drawn 7 to the fact that the Division Bench had earlier passed orders in respect of the petition filed by the present applicants as well as the fact that the contempt petition was pending. The Bench was oblivious of these orders and accordingly the orders of which review is sought for came to be passed directing the respondents to consider the case of the original petitioners for absorbing them in the vacant post in Municipal Council, Osmanabad. 4. In that light the review is sought for. According to us, a small clarification, if issued, would avert the possibility of reviewing our earlier order. We therefore direct that the cases of the present applicants to be considered for absorption in the light of the orders passed by the Division bench of this Court as well as by the learned Single Judge exercising contempt jurisdiction and in the event any posts are available, the claim of the original petitioners for their repatriation from Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad to Municipal Council, Osmanabad be considered in accordance with Law. 5. With this clarification, the review application is allowed to the extent indicated above with no order as to costs. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) (P.V.HARDAS, J.) khs/AUGUST 2009/rp41-09