Ganesh Dnyanobarao Devkate v. The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
2025:BHC-AUG:5675-DB 912-CA.4615-24.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD 912 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4615 OF 2024 IN RAST/9253/2024 GANESH DNYANOBARAO DEVKATE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS ...
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Deshmukh Shambhuraje V. AGP for Respondent/s-State : Mr. P. S. Patil. Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. S. B. Pulkundwar. Advocate for Respondent Nos.3 & 4 : Mr. V. S. Dhotare h/f Mr. A. N. Suryawanshi.
...
CORAM : S. G. MEHARE, AND SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.
DATE : 26.02.2025 PER COURT :- 1.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2.
For the reasons mentioned in the civil application, delay condoned and heard the matter finally. Civil Application stands allowed. Review application be registered accordingly. 3.
This is a review application to review the order dated 21.06.2021, in which, the learned counsel for the petitioner had conceded the facts that the petitioner was not qualified and the roaster was not followed. Considering the facts
912-CA.4615-24.odt admitted and issue involved before the Court, the Co-ordinate Bench passed the order on 21.06.2021 and dismissed the writ petition.
4.
The petitioner came with the case that subsequently there are certain orders passed favouring the employee. Considering the facts, we are of the view that the petitioner does not fall under Order 47 Rule 1. Prima facie nothing is new discovered including evidence which was already in existence, it could not be discovered after the exercise of due diligence or not with the knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him at the time of passing the earlier orders. We did not find error apparent on the face of the record in the order under review. There are also no other sufficient reasons to review the order.
5.
Hence, the review application stands dismissed. 6.
No order as to costs.
(SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.) (S. G. MEHARE, J.) ...
vmk/-