4-CAO-1130-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1130 OF 2025 (DELAY) IN MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION ST. NO. 19629 OF 2025 (REVIEW) IN WRIT PETITION NO. 6015 OF 2024 (D) (Ku. Surekha Bhauraoji Yeole Vs. Deputy Director of Education, Nagpur Division & Ors.) __________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. Mr. S. Rawate h/f Mr. S.M. Vaishnav, Counsel for the applicant. Mr. A.V. Palshikar, A.G.P. for respondent no.1/State. Ms. U.A. Patil, Counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3. ..... CORAM : ANIL L. PANSARE AND ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ. AUGUST 21, 2026 The applicant is not pressing for orders. 2] The application is, accordingly, disposed of. MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION ST. NO. 19629/2025 3] Leave to amend Review Application by adding prayer seeking to condone delay, is granted. The amendment shall be carried out forthwith. The Review Application be registered accordingly. 4] Issue notice to the respondents returnable on 4/9/2026. 5] The learned A.G.P. waives notice for respondent no.1/State. 6] Ms. U.A. Patil, learned Counsel, waives notice for respondent nos. 2 and 3. 7] Heard. 8] The Counsel for the applicant has invited our attention to paragraph 2 of the order sought to be reviewed, which reads thus : 4-CAO-1130-2025 2 “2) Clause (2) of the above G.R. indicates that any such upgradation has to be done in terms of seniority. Admittedly, when there is senior teacher Ku.Atram, who is teaching 6th to 8th standard with the said school, her claim would have preference over the petitioner. Though Mr.Shende states that there are three vacancies available in the High School department, 9th and 10th standard, however, Mr.Patil, learned counsel refutes that position. In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to entertain the petition, the same is dismissed. No costs.” 9] The emphasis is on last five lines, where the submission of the Counsel for the petitioner that there are three vacancies is noted. The said submission has been ignored on the basis of the statement made by the Counsel appearing for respondent nos. 2 and 3 that no such vacancy exists. 10] The Counsel for the applicant submits that subsequent to the decision rendered by this Court, the applicant has obtained information under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005. He has been informed that three vacancies were available at the relevant time. According to him, the statement made by the Counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3 is incorrect. 11] The Counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3 seeks time to take instructions on the point. Granted. She may file reply, if so required. 12] List on 4/9/2026. (JUDGE) (JUDGE) Sumit Signed by: Mr. Sumit Agrawal Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 21/08/2026 19:44:13