1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CIVIL APPLICATION (w) NO. 3262 /2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2131/2003 (D) (1. Sanjay Atmaram Lokhande and others vs. State of Maharashtra and others ) .................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ..................................................................................................................................................................... CORAM : D.D.SINHA & A.P.BHANGALE, JJ DATED : 25th January, 2011. Heard Mr.P.B.Patil, learned counsel for petitioners; Sunil Manohar, learned counsel for respondent no. 3 and Mrs. Rashi Deshpande, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Respondents 1 and 2. Civil Application No. 3262/2010 is moved by the respondent No.3- Zilla Parishad for appropriate direction. Mr. Sunil Manohar, learned counsel has brought to our notice the order dated 30th July 2004 passed by this Court, whereby Writ Petition No.2131/2003 came to be disposed of on the basis of the concession given by the learned counsel appearing for Zilla Parishad that the case of the petitioners in the said petition for appointment on the post of Shikshan Sevaks, in view of the vacancy available, shall be considered in accordance with law. Mr. Manohar, further, submitted that there 2 were 164 posts of Shikshan Sevaks were required to be filled in. 360 candidates were shortlisted, to be considered for appointment on the said posts. Out of that 164 were called for interview and 99 candidates were selected and appointed on the said posts. 65 vacancies remained to be filled in. It is contended that some of the candidates who were shortlisted and not appointed, filed Writ Petition No. 5270/2006, 5271/2006, 5273/2006 and 5274/2006 and 5275/2006 before the learned single Judge. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that so far as other observations made by the learned single Judge in the order dated 7th September, 2009 is concerned, the Zilla Parishad is not aggrieved in any way. However, one of the directions given by the learned single Judge reads thus:- “With the above state of affairs, only course left open for this Court is to request the Division Bench of this Court, if it thinks fit, to review the orders in Writ Petition Nos.1986/2003, 2065/2003 and 2131/2003 and connected petitions, if any, Hence I make the following order : (a) Registry to place Writ Petition Nos. 1986/2003; 2065/2003 and 2131/2003 and connected petitions, if any, disposed of on 31.7.2004 before the Division Bench for consideration (b) Writ Petition Nos. 5270/2006 ; 5271 /2006; 3 5273/2006; 5274/2006 and 5275/2006 be also placed before the Division Bench for consideration.” Mr. Manohar, learned counsel for Zilla Parishad has submitted that in view of the decision taken by the Zilla Parishad in appointing the Shikshan sevaks, if anybody is aggrieved it is open for the person concerned to take appropriate remedy available in law. However, the observations made by the learned single Judge is not known to the legal procedure whereby the Division Bench can be called upon to reconsider the judgment on its own merit in absence of any party moving either for revview, modification or clarification. Considered the contentions canvassed by the respective counsel. Anybody who is aggrieved by the action of the statutory /legal body or the State is entitled to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of his grievance. At the same time if the parties to the petition/proceedings which are disposed of by this Court is aggrieved by the decision of this Court, is entitled to go in appeal against the said order or can move the same court for modification, clarification or review of the same order. The direction given by the learned single judge to place the Writ Petitions before the Division Bench for reconsideration of its own order or review of the own order, is not known to the legal procedure and, therefore, 4 on the face of it are totally misconceived and devoid of substance. It is no doubt true that the learned single Judge has observed in the order that it is open for this Court to request to Division bench of this Court, if it thinks fit, to review the orders in W.P.Nos. 1986/2003, 2065/2003 and 2131/2003.” There is no propriety in observing this as we have already expressed that it is open for the party aggrieved to move the appropriate court for redressal of his grievance. In that view of the matter, we hold that the observations which are unsustainable in law, need not be acted upon. With the above observations, Civil Application is disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE sahare