1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Misc. Civil Application [Review] No. 660 of 2011 IN Writ Petition no.5128 of 2010 [decided] [Suresh Nilkanth Pandey Vs. Mahesh Vidya Prasarak Shikshan Sanstha] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. P.D. Meghe, Adv., for the applicant-petitioner. ----- CORAM : A.H. JOSHI AND A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATE : 4th August, 2011. 1. Writ Petition No. 5128 of 2010 was disposed of accepting the statement of the Management that petitioner's seniority would not adversely affected etc., upon his transfer, which was challenged in the Writ Petition. 2. By this Review Application, petitioner is seeking review of the Order passed by this Court on 26 th April, 2011. 3. Heard learned Adv. Mr. P.D. Meghe for the applicant-petitioner. 4. By way of grounds for review, Ground (E) is pressed, which reads as follows:- “(E) It is further submitted that the petitioner received an information recently under the 2 Right to Information Act which clearly discloses that the present Headmasters Shri Patil and Shri Janbandhu are quite junior to the present petitioner. As earlier stated, in seniority list Shri Patil's appointment as Headmaster is in Scheduled Caste category but while seeking approval to the appointment of Shri G.M. Janbandhu to the post of Headmaster, it is shown against the reserved post of Scheduled Castes, Shri Patil's appointment is shown under Scheduled Tribes Category. In fact, both belong to Scheduled Caste category which is evident from the seniority list. This clearly amounts to misleading the authority and playing fraud against the employees and manipulating the things. This itself clearly shows malafide intentions on the part of Management to mislead this Hon'ble Court. Therefore, on this count filing misleading documents, the impugned Judgment and order needs to be reviewed and the petition of the petitioner needs to be allowed. Copy of order of approval issued by Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Bhandara dated 3.3.1996 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure II and the Seniority List published by Management is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure III. A copy of communication issued by respondent no.1-Management to respondent no.3 – the Education Officer dated 13-9- 10 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-IV to this review application.” 3 5. Admittedly, the development in relation to which grievance is made in the petition pertaining to promotion of alleged junior is later in date to the date of approval. 6. The result is that petitioner's grievance now shown in the Review Application is pertaining to the supersession and, therefore, does not constitute a ground for review. 7. We, therefore, reject the application. Judge Judge |Hedau|