IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. O. O. C. J. O. C. J. O. C. J. NOTICE NOTICE NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 354 OF 2004 OF MOTION NO. 354 OF 2004 OF MOTION NO. 354 OF 2004 IN IN IN REVIEW REVIEW REVIEW PETITION NO. 33 OF 200 PETITION NO. 33 OF 200 PETITION NO. 33 OF 2004 IN IN IN WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 2237 OF 1989 PETITION NO. 2237 OF 1989 PETITION NO. 2237 OF 1989 Kangorpally Parameswaran Ravi ....... Petitioner. versus 1. Karthika High School & ors...... Respondents. ..... Mr. Uday Bobade i/b. Jeetendra Ramugade for the petitioner. Mr. O.J. Menezes for the Respondents 1 and 2. Mr. L.T. Sateekar AGP for Respondents 3 and 4. ..... CORAM CORAM CORAM ; V.G.PALSHIKAR ; V.G.PALSHIKAR ; V.G.PALSHIKAR & MRS. MRS. MRS. NISHITA MHATRE, JJ. NISHITA MHATRE, JJ. NISHITA MHATRE, JJ. DATED; DATED; DATED; 24TH SEPTEMBER, 2004. 24TH SEPTEMBER, 2004. 24TH SEPTEMBER, 2004. P.C.; P.C.; P.C.; 1. The delay caused in filing the Review Petition is condoned for reasons mentioned in the Notice of Motion no. 354 of 2004. 2. Heard the learned counsel on merits of the Review Petition. The writ petition has been disposed of as infructuous, in view of the fact that the petitioner had, by the time the petition came up for adjudication, dismissed from service. His litigation with the institution is pending and hence the order dismissing the petition as infructuous cannot obstruct the petitioner’s right that may flow out of the order, which might be made in that litigation. 3. Hence Notice of Motion as also the Review Petition are rejected. .....