Zilla Parishad Akola Thr. Chief Executive Officer And Another v. Rullah Khan Sarfaraz Khan And Others

cao1682.16-Order 1/2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

CIVIL APPLN. (O) NO.1682 OF 2016 IN M. C. A ST. NO.17459 OF 2016 IN WRIT PETN. NO. 3137 OF 2015 (D) Zilla Parishad Akola, through its C.E.O. and another -vsRullah Khan Sarfarazkhan and others ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders.

or directions and Registrar's orders.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mr.M.V.Bute, counsel for the applicants/original respondent Nos.2 and 3.. Mr.Ram Karode, counsel for the non-applicant No.1/petitioner. Mr. Ambarish Joshi, AGP for the respondent-State. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK & A. S. CHANDURKAR, JJ.

DATE : 07.04.2017.

CIVIL APPLN. (O) NO.1682 OF 2016 Heard.

For the reasons stated in the application, the delay in filing the miscellaneous civil application is condoned. The civil application is allowed and disposed of.

M. C. A ST. NO.17459 OF 2016 Heard.

It is not disputed that the committee that had observed that injustice was meted out to the original petitioner though the petitioner had secured more marks than the appointed candidates was duly constituted by the Zilla Parishad Akola to look into the complaints made by the candidates. We have based our order on the document at Annexure-L, page 66 of the original petition constituting the committee of three members to look into the

cao1682.16-Order 2/2 complaints and the order of the committee dated 20/04/2013 that injustice is meted out to the petitioner by appointing the candidates that had secured lower marks than the petitioner. The said documents are not disputed. Since these two documents on the basis of which we had passed the order are not disputed by the applicantzilla parishad, no ground is made out for reviewing the order, specially when the review is sought to be based on some documents which were not a part of the record in the writ petition. The miscellaneous civil application stands rejected. JUDGE JUDGE KHUNTE