Tarachand Mukinda Chindhe v. Abhijeet Dyaneshwar Kalgunde And Others

2026:BHC-AUG:18846-DB 1 3-RA-60-26.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD REVIEW APPLICATION (CIVIL) NO. 60 OF 2026 IN WP/7915/2024 TARACHAND MUKINDA CHINDHE

VERSUS

ABHIJEET DNYANESHWAR KALGUNDE AND OTHERS ...

Mr. Yogesh H. Lagad, Advocate for Applicant Mr. A. V. Lavte, AGP for Respondent/State ...

CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND NEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ.

DATE : 20th APRIL, 2026 PER COURT :

1.

By this application, applicant seeks review of the order dated 11/11/2025, passed by this Court [Coram: R. G. Avachat and Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ.] in Writ Petition No.7915/2024. 2.

Learned advocate for applicant raised three grounds for review of the said order viz. 1) Misinterpretation of decree of respondent No.1 while allowing the writ petition; 2) Communications of the authorities in respect of the said qualification are not taken into consideration by this Court; and 3) Other Zilla Parishads have rejected the candidature of candidates possessing B.E. Mechanical degree. He submits that these aspects are ignored while allowing the writ petition.

3.

On going through the order under review, we find that SVH

2 3-RA-60-26.odt this Court has taken into consideration all the submissions made by the review applicant, while deciding the petition. In the said order, it is observed that, 'As per the advertisement, even a degree in Arts stream i.e. B.A. with Mathematics or Statistics is a requisite qualification, we fail to understand why not a degree in Engineering (B.E. Mechanical) with Mathematics or Statistics is one of the subjects. In our view, B.E. is necessarily a graduation in Science stream. The petitioner's educational qualification gets covered by the clause as to requisite qualification in the advertisement'. Admittedly, the review applicant / respondent No.5 in the writ petition, does possess degree in Science stream as his specialization is in Computer Science.

4.

In this view of the matter and since the judgment is passed considering the facts of the present case, we do not find any merit in the grounds raised in the review application. Review application is, therefore, rejected.

(NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.) (NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.) SVH