0903mca228.11.odt 1/2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 228 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 465 OF 2011 (D) (Chandrapuri Maharaj Shikshan Prasarak Mandal & another Vs. Rekha Bhaurao Gaigole & others) ........................................................................................................................................................................ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ...................................................................................................................................................................... Ms T. H. Udeshi, Advocate for the applicant-petitioner. Shri B. M. Lonare, A.G.P. for respondents No. 2 & 3. CORAM : R. K. DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 09 MARCH, 2011. Application for amendment is allowed. 1. By this application, review of order dated 09/02/2011, passed by this Court dismissing Writ Petition No. 465 of 2011 has been sought. 2. Miss Udeshi, learned Counsel for the applicant has urged that this Court has recorded concession of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner in para 5 to the effect that the applicability of the provision of M.E.P.S. Act is not disputed. She submits that this concession is given under the erroneous impression and the same being concession of law, it is not binding on the petitioner. She submits that the provisions of M.E.P.S. Act are not applicable to the conditions of service of the employees which according to her, are governed by the Bombay Primary Education Act and the Rules, 1949. 3. In order to verify the position, I have called upon Shri Akshay 0903mca228.11.odt 2/2 Naik, the learned Counsel who had appeared for the petitioner in writ petition and had given such concession. He has placed on record the decision of Division Bench of this Court delivered on 28/02/2008 delivered in L.P.A. No. 177 of 2007 (Kranti-Jyoti Savitrribai Fuley Mandal Vs. State of Maharashtra & others), wherein it has been held that if the field is unoccupied then conditions of service will be governed by the terms incorporated in the order of appointment. According to him the order of appointment at Annex.-A dated 30/6/2007, contains the term that the provision of MEPS Act would be applicable and it is on that basis, that concession was made. In view of this, no fault can be found with such concession given by the learned Counsel. The contention raised upon the same is, therefore, rejected. 4. Ms Udeshi, learned Counsel for the applicant-petitioner invited my attention to ground No. B on page No. 7 of the writ petition and urged that though this ground was raised in the petition, the same has not been considered. In the application seeking review of the order, there is no statement made that the ground was urged and the same has not been considered. Now, to consider the said ground and to pass an order would amount to re-hearing of the case, which is not permissible in review jurisdiction. In view of this, no ground for review has been made out. 5. In view of the above, the revision application is dismissed. JUDGE wwl