Bhagyawan Sampat Bagade v. The Union Of India, Through Secretary Ministry Of Communication And I.T. Dept. New Delhi And Others

28.11.cao.1080.17+

IN THE COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR 1) C.A.NO.1080/2017 IN MCA(ST)NO.3362/2017 IN W.P.NO. 3480/2014 (Gautam Govindrao Manwatkar vs. Union of India and others) 2) C.A.NO.1085/2017 IN MCA(ST)NO.3363/2017 IN W.P.NO. 1006/2016 (Shriram Namdeo Dhole vs. Union of India and others) 3) C.A.NO.1086/2017 IN MCA(ST)NO.3352/2017 IN W.P.NO. 3299/2014 (Bhagyawan Sampat Bagade vs. Union of India and others) 4) C.A.NO.1081/2017 IN MCA(ST)NO.3360/2017 IN W.P.NO. 3295/2014 (Avinash Fakira Raut vs. Union of India and others) 5) C.A.NO.1082/2017 IN MCA(ST)NO.3359/2017 IN W.P.NO. 1902/2016 (Shashikant Namdeorao Bankar vs. Union of India and others) ..........................................................

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders .............................................................................................................................................. Mr. Bambal, Advocate for applicant/petitioner/s Mrs.Mugdha Chandurkar,Adv.for UOI.

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.

DATED : 28th November, 2017.

Heard.

2.

Prayer is to condone delay of two days in filing Miscellaneous Civil Application. MCA is being pressed on ground raised in paragraph 7 of Review Petition.

3.

Perusal of order dated 9th January, 2017 passed by us in

28.11.cao.1080.17+ Writ Petition No.3299/2014, 1006/2016. 1902/2016, 3295/2014 and 3480/2014 shows that counsel then appearing for petitioner/s was fully heard and we have taken note of fact that after sixteen years and after participation in subsequent examinations, effort was made to assail 1997 examination conducted by the employer.

4.

We have also taken note of judgment of the Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court dated 15.7.2014 in Civil Appeal No.6046-6047 of 2004. We have also found that examination of 1997 in which these applicants participated was not before the Hon'ble Apex Court.

5.

In this situation, we find this effort to obtain review by change of Advocate erroneous and misconceived. No case is made out even for condonation of delay. The proceedings are rejected. No costs.

6.

Adv.Bambal submits that in Writ Petition Nos. 3295/2014 and 1902/2016 similar applications are filed. Adv.(Mrs) Chandurkar appearing for respondents points out that those matters are not on Board. In view of orders passed today in above matters, these matters are taken on Board and we dispose of the same with the same order.

JUDGE JUDGE sahare