1 C.A.No.2016/10 In WP2429/04 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2016 OF 2010 IN REV.APPLICATION ST.NO.28396 OF 2009 IN W.P.NO.2429 OF 2004. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders Mr.S.R.Barlinge, advocate for the applicant. Mr.B.A.Darak, advocate for the Respondents. CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 11.11.2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. This is an application for condonation of delay of 5 years and 240 days in filing the Review Petition. 3. Mr.Barlinge, learned counsel for the applicant strenuously contends that after the Writ Petition was decided, the applicant had made representations and even Government had directed the Respondents to consider the case of the applicant but still the Respondents did not consider the same and so lastly Review Petition was filed. 4. Much time was elapsed in persuading the Respondents and 2 C.A.No.2016/10 In WP2429/04 Government authorities to consider the case of the applicant. The learned counsel contends that the Review Petition filed by the applicant is based on strong legal grounds and at the time of considering the application for condonation of delay, even the merits of the Review Petition are required to be considered. At the time when the Writ Petition was decided, the applicant could not point out the relevant aspect about lapsing of the reservation after particular period and that the reservation was interchangeable. The applicant was belonging to SC category and the seat was reserved for a candidate from ST category. The learned counsel contends that in view of the aforesaid facts, the delay deserves to be condoned. 5. Mr.Darak, learned counsel for the Respondents submits that the expression "sufficient cause" can not be construed in a manner which would render the said expression "sufficient cause" superflous . It is not a case that the applicant was unaware of the order passed by this Court or that he was prevented by "sufficient cause" in filing Review Petition. Simply making representations would not be sufficient to extend the period of limitation. 6. Initially, I had asked the learned counsel for the Respondents regarding vacancy of the post and affidavit is filed that the post is not vacant. Mr.Barlinge, learned counsel contends that the same was filled in after the Review Petition was filed and 3 C.A.No.2016/10 In WP2429/04 notices were issued. Be that as it may, the fact is that no vacant post is available. Even otherwise, the delay which is sought to be condoned is inordinate i.e. of 5 years and 240 days. No plausible reason except that the representations were being made to consider the case of the petitioner is set forth. Taking into account the above conspectus of the matter, it would not be possible to set the clock back by eight years. 7. In light of the above, the application is rejected. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) Dt.11.11.2011. asp/office/Ca2016.10 4 C.A.No.2016/10 In WP2429/04