Smt. Kumud Wd/O Siddharth Meshram v. State Of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary, General Administration Dept. Ministry Of Education And Others

2025:BHC-NAG:7999-DB mca156.2025.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION NO.156/2025 IN WRIT PETITION NO.3711/2021 (D) (Smt. Kumud Wd/o Siddartha Meshram Vs. State of Maharashtra and others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. P.N. Shende, Advocate for petitioner.

Ms. M.H. Deshmukh, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 5. Mr. N.S. Khubalkar, Advocate for respondent Nos.4 and 5. Mr. Prashant Gode, Advocate for respondent Nos.6 and 7. Mr. Subhash Paliwal, Advocate for respondent Nos.8 and 9. CORAM: ANIL S. KILOR & MRS.VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ. DATED: 13.8.2025.

Heard.

2.

The learned Advocate for the applicant/petitioner sought review of the order dated 6.7.2023 on the ground that this Court has wrongly relied upon the Government Resolution dated 21.9.2017 which is not applicable to the petitioner as she is seeking compassionate appointment in a private aided school whereas the above Government Resolution is applicable to the government employees.

3.

On a specific query made to the learned Advocate for the applicant, whether this argument was made before the Court or pointed out while dictating the judgment in open Court, the learned Advocate submits that he was not the lawyer at that time and some other lawyer appeared and argued.

4.

Thus, on the point which was never argued and pressed in service while arguing the matter, the review came to be filed.

mca156.2025.odt 5.

In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the review on the ground which was not pressed and argued is not permissible. Accordingly, review application is rejected. No costs. (MRS.VRUSHALI V.JOSHI, J.) (ANIL S. KILOR, J.) Tambaskar.

Signed by: MR. N.V. TAMBASKAR Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 14/08/2025 17:03:07