← Library
Bombay High CourtMCA/582/2015dismissedrule discharged

Prashant S/O Yogiraj Bhate v. The Collector And President Of District Selection Committee, Yavatmal And 3 Others

2015-06-26Hon'Ble Smt. Justice V.A. Naik,Hon'Ble Shri Justice P.B. Varale2 pages

MCA582-15 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR M.C.A. NO.582 OF 2015 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 4620/2014 (D) (PRASHANT YOGIRAJ BHATE VERSUS THE COLLECTOR AND PRESIDENT OF DISTT. SELECTION COMMITTEE, YAVATMAL & OTHERS) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri N.S. Khandewale, counsel for the applicant. Shri N.R. Rode, A.G.P. for the R-1.

CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ.

DATE : JUNE 26 , 2015.

By this review application, the applicant has sought the review of the order dated 07.10.2014 on the ground that the order of which the review is sought runs contrary to the view expressed by this Court in the order dated 15.07.2014 in Writ Petition No.2616 of 2013.

On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the order dated 15.07.2014 in Writ Petition No.2616 of 2013 which is said to be contradictory, it appears that the facts involved in both the petitions were different. In Writ Petition No.2616 of 2013, a question in regard to the equivalence of the degree in Computer Science & Engineering and degree in Information Technology was considered, whereas in Writ Petition No.4620 of 2014, the question of equivalence of the degree of Computer Engineering and degree of Master of Computer Application is involved. It appears that it was wrongly conveyed to the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the issue involved in both the cases was similar and the order in Writ Petition No.2616 of 2013 runs contrary to the decision, of which the review is sought.

MCA582-15 In view of the aforesaid, we dismiss the review application with costs.

JUDGE JUDGE APTE