1 ra23.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 23 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 10841 OF 2010 The Chairman, The Shendurni Education Co-Op. Society Ltd., Shendurni, Tq. Jamner Dist. Jalgaon & Others. ...APPLICANTS VERSUS Ganesh s/o Ramchandra Bhaurde, Age: 39 years, Occ: Service, R/o. At Post Shendurni, Tal. Jamner, Dist. Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENT ... Mr. B.S. Deshmukh, Advocate for applicants. ... CORAM: S.S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 25TH FEBRUARY, 2011 PER COURT : Heard learned Counsel for the applicants. 2. This application is filed by the review- applicants, review order dated 15-12-2010 passed 2 ra23.11 by this Court in Writ Petition No. 10841 of 2010. 3. This Court, in the impugned order, has observed that though the matter was adjourned, to facilitate the counsel for the petitioner to argue the matter with a clear understanding that no further adjournment would be granted. However, Counsel for the petitioner is not present. Therefore, this Court was not left with any other option but to decide the Writ Petition on merits. 4. Learned Counsel for the review-applicants submits that the reasons given in the application for condonation of delay are not supported by the affidavit, as law mandates it. He further submits that the reason given in the application that the respondent was not aware about the legal provision cannot be sustained. He further submitted that rank of the respondent was reduced from Senior Clerk to Junior Clerk and therefore, it cannot be said that there was apprehension in his mind to loose his job. Therefore, learned Counsel would 3 ra23.11 submit that the review application may be allowed. 5. I have given due consideration to the submissions of the learned Counsel for the review- applicants and perused the grounds given in the review application. In my opinion, order passed by this Court on 15-12-2010 does not need any interference. The grounds agitated in this review petition were available to the applicant even at the time of deciding Writ Petition. It is unfortunate that the Lawyer who was appointed by the review- applicant did not remain present on the date, on which the Writ Petition was fixed for hearing and now, to overcome the said observation that Counsel for the petitioner is not present in order dated 15-12-2010, this review application is filed. In my opinion, this review application is misconceived. 6. Apart from above, there was 30 days delay 4 ra23.11 in filing appeal before the School Tribunal. In my opinion, reasons recorded by the School Tribunal condoning the delay, cannot be said to be unreasonable. After all, the grievance of the litigant is required to be adjudicated on merits and not by rejecting appeal by taking hyper technical view that there is delay of 30 days. In my opinion, this review application is devoid of any merits. 7. In fact, this is a fit case, in which this Court should impose cost on the applicant, however, learned Counsel for the review applicant has orally submitted that, he was not present on 15-12-2010 for his some personal difficulties. In this view of the matter, I am not passing any order imposing costs. Review application is misconceived and same stands dismissed. [ S.S. SHINDE, J.] sut/feb11/ra23.11