1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR M.C.A. No. (Review) No. 500/2009 in Writ Petition No. 4528/2007 Rajendra s/o Gopalrao Dhakate Vs. State of Mah. and others. M.C.A. No. (Review) No. 330/2009 in Writ Petition No. 4528/2007 Sitaram Vithalrao Wagh Vs. State of Mah. and others. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders of directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders (In MCA (Review)No.500/2009) Mr. Dhore, Adv. holding for Adv. De, for the applicant. Mr. J.B. Jaiswal, APP for respondents 1 and 2. Mr. Naik, Adv. for respondents 3 and 4. Ms. Rane, Adv. for respondent no.5. (In MCA (Review)No.330/2009) Ms. Rane, Adv. for the applicant Mr. J.B. Jaiswal, APP for respondents 1 and 2. Mr. Naik, Adv. for respondents 3 and 4. Mr. Dhore, Adv. holding for Adv. De, for respondent no.5. Coram : A.P. Lavande & Prasanna B.Varale, JJ. Reserved on : 12th June, 2009. Pronounced on 19th June, 2009. Both these applications seek review of judgment and order dated 20th November, 2008 passed by this Court disposing of Writ Petition No. 4528/200. The Writ Petition was filed by the applicant in MCA No. 500/2009 which was allowed by the judgment and order which is sought to be reviewed. Writ Petition no. 4528/2007 was filed by Rajendra Dhakate challenging the order dated 31.10.2006 issued by respondent no.3, Z.P. Yavatmal appointing respondent no.5 Sitaram Wagh to the post of Multi-purpose Health Worker. According to petitioner, respondent no.5 was appointed against the post, which was reserved for Special Backward Class. Since the caste of 2 respondent no.5 was Mana, he did not belong to Special Backward Class and as such his appointment was illegal and, therefore, was liable to be quashed and set aside. The Division Bench held that `Mana’ caste was initially included in the category of Special Backward Class but by Government Resolution dated 2nd June, 2004 Mana was excluded from the list of Special Backward Class and, therefore, in the year 2006 respondent no.5 could not have been appointed against the post reserved for Special Backward Class. Since respondent no.5 claimed to belong to Mana caste, the Division Bench by judgment dated 20th November, 2008 quashed his appointment as Multi-purpose Health Worker but did not grant any relief in favour of the petitioner. Ms. Rane, learned counsel appearing on behalf of original respondent no.5 submitted that respondent no.5 was originally appointed in the year 1998 as seasonal spraying worker and as such his appointment in the year 2006 as Multi-purpose Health Worker was not illegal and as such could not have been set aside. She, therefore, submitted that the judgment and order discloses an error apparent on the face of record and hence, the judgment and order deserves to be reviewed. Mr. Dhore, learned counsel for original petitioner submitted that although this Court has quashed and set aside the appointment of respondent no.5 as Multi-purpose Health Worker, the petitioner has not been given any relief although he had claimed appointment in the said post to which he was entitled. According to Mr. Dhore, he was entitled to be appointed to the said post once respondent no.5 was found to be illegal since the name of the petitioner figured at Sr. No.2 of the waiting list prepared in the year 2006 of Multi- 3 purpose Health Workers. He, therefore, submitted that the judgment and order discloses error apparent on the face of record and, therefore, deserves to be reviewed. Per contra, Mr. Naik, learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 submitted that insofar as respondent no.5 is concerned, he was appointed on temporary basis in the year 1998 as seasonal spraying worker by the respondent no.3 and his appointment as Multi-purpose Health Worker in the year 2006 was fresh appointment. Therefore, no case has been made out for review by respondent no.5. Insofar as the petitioner is concerned, Mr. Naik submitted that the petitioner was at Sr. No.2 of the waiting list and one Mr. Pinge figured at Sr. No. 1 of the waiting list and as such the petitioner was not entitled to be appointed to the post of Multi-purpose Health Worker even though the appointment of respondent no.5 was set aside. Learned counsel further submitted that the waiting list prepared in the year 2006 was for the period of one year in terms of the Government Resolution and as such the question of appointing the petitioner in the said post in the year 2008 does not arise. Having heard learned counsel for the parties in both the applications, we are of the considered opinion that no case is made out by both the applicants for review of the judgment and order dated 20th November, 2008. Insofar as the petitioner is concerned, there is no dispute that his name figured at Sr. No.2 of the waiting list and Mr. Pinge figured at Sr. No.1. Moreover, as rightly submitted by Mr. Naik, the waiting list prepared in the year 2006 was valid for the period of one year. On both these grounds, the petitioner is not entitled to be appointed to the post although the 4 appointment of respondent no.5 has been set aside. Insofar as respondent no.5 is concerned, admittedly, he was appointed as seasonal spraying worker in the year 1998 by respondent no.5. The appointment was on temporary basis and the respondent no.5 was appointed as Multipurpose Health Worker in the year 2006. His appointment for the said post which was reserved for special reserved for backward class was patently illegal. Therefore, we do not find any error apparent on the face of the record in the judgment and order dated 20th November, 2008. For the reasons aforesaid, we do not find merit in both the applications. Consequently, both the applications are dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE Ambulkar