Bombay High CourtCA/8927/2017disposed offdismissed for default

Sugriv Dinkar Shendge v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

2017-07-12Hon'Ble Shri Justice Sangitrao S. Patil,Hon'Ble Shri Justice T.V. Nalawade2 pages

1 CA 8927 OF 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD Civil Application No.8927 of 2017 In Review Application Stamp No.15186 of 2017 In Writ Petition No.6462 of 2016 Sugriv s/o Dinkar Shendge.

.. Applicant.

Versus

The State of Maharashtra And Others.

.. Respondents.

---- Shri. B.V. Thombre, Advocate, for applicant. Shri. S.B. Pulkundwar, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

---- Coram: T.V. NALAWADE & SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.

Date : 12 July 2017 ORDER:

1) Delay condoned. The review application is filed on the ground that this Court probably did not consider the Government letter dated 27-12-2011 due to which each candidate was given 50 marks for answering Question Nos.151 to 200 and in view of that Government letter, present petitioner could have been also given 50 marks and so his total would have crossed 100.

2 CA 8927 OF 2017 2) The learned AGP drew attention of this Court to the circumstance that it was not the attempt of the petitioner which is mentioned in the Government letter but it was a separate and special attempt due to directions given by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal to hold his separate examination. The learned AGP submitted that previous question paper which was a part of the aforesaid Government letter was not given to the candidates, like the present petitioner but new question paper, which was separately set containing correct questions in view of the directions of the Tribunal, was given and so the assessment of all the answers given to these question has been done and the marks are given.

The learned AGP submitted that this record was also placed before the Tribunal and only after considering that record the Tribunal has given the decision against the petitioner. In view of these circumstances and the submissions made, this Court holds that it is not possible to review the decision. The review application stands dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.) (T.V. NALAWADE, J.)