1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION (REVIEW) NO. 566 OF 2007 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 5199 OF 2006 Rekha Baburaoji Gaidhane vs. Hon'ble President, Grievance Committee Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. JANUARY 23, 2008. Heard Shri Parchure, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Parihar, learned AGP for respondents No. 2 & 5 and Shri Kapgate, learned counsel for respondents No. 3, 4 & 6. By this Misc. Civil Application, petitioner No.1 in Writ Petition No. 5199 of 2006 is seeking review of order dated 13.3.2007 passed by me dismissing said writ petition. The review is sought on the ground that though petitioner No.1 had in fact completed three years of service before 18.1.2000, a document certifying the same could not be produced before this Court at that time. The said document is filed as Annexure II along with this Misc. Civil Application. The document shows that on 5.2.2005, a certificate has been issued to Petitioner No.1 after making appropriate 2 amendment/ correction. It is mentioned that between 1.2.1997 to 15.1.2000, the petitioner has completed three years of service as Part Time employee but she could not fulfill the requirement of procuring experience certificate on 8.1.2000. Shri Parchure, learned counsel states that period up to 15.1.2000 falls short by 15 days for completion of three years from 1.1.1997, as per circular only service of 15 days as Part Time employee in a month is sufficient and hence said shortfall of 15 days is not relevant. He states that thus petitioner No.1 fulfills the requirement of possessing three years experience as Part Time employee and therefore she was eligible for consideration in response to advertisement issued by Respondent No.3 – Zilla Parishad. Shri Kapgate, learned counsel for respondent No.3 – Zilla Parishad states that the document itself has been procurred on 14.2.2005 i.e. after the last date prescribed in advertisement by Zilla Parishad had expired. He further states that this document could have been pointed to this Court when it decided writ petition because the document was well within the knowledge of the petitioner and in support he points out averment on these lines made by petitioner No.1 in para 2 of her Appeal No. 59 of 3 2005 before the Grievance Committee. He states that these requirements which form basis of adjudication, have been considered by this Court and as such no case for review is being made out. He wants to place reliance upon certain cases to demonstrate that when a fact or document within the knowledge of a party is not shown to Court during the relevant litigation, the same cannot be the ground for its review or reopening it. He further states that along with Writ Petition, certificate dated 30.9.2004 issued by Tahsildar was filed which also revealed that as a Part Time employee, the petitioner had completed three years of service. He, therefore, states that after considering said certificate and circular, this Court has already taken one view of the matter and as such there is no scope for taking another view in review. He further points out that the certificate at Annexure “A” with the petitioner (dated 30.9.2004) itself clearly demonstrates that the certificate does not confer any right upon petitioner No.1. The learned AGP appearing for respondents No. 2 & 5 adopts the arguments of Shri Kapgate. The perusal of certificate filed along with the petition clearly shows that fact sought to 4 be brought on record or demonstrated by producing the subsequent certificate dated 14.2.2005 along with review application was already pressed into service before this Court when it decided writ petition. Said certificate along with the provisions of circular is considered by me and a particular view is already reached. The document dated 14.2.2005 does not contain any material which should enable me to take another view of the matter. Similarly, the last date for filing of application for the post of Shikshan Sewak as per advertisement issued by Zilla Parishad was 20.5.2003. Thus, period of about four years has already expired thereafter. In these circumstances, I find that no case for review is being made out in the present matter. Review application is accordingly dismissed. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.