Neeta Sawant 7-RPW--147-2025.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION NO. 147 OF 2025 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 6022 OF 2002 Mrs. Sangeeta J. Shinde ..Petitioner … : Versus : Rajendra Vasant Zope & Ors. .Respondents … Mr. Prashant G. Kayande, for the Review Petitioner. Mr. Fuzil A. Wasif with Mr. Parag R. Zope, for Respondent No.1. Mr. Mayuresh Modgi, for Respondent Nos.2 and 3. Ms. Mansi Bane, AGP for State. CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATED : 3 SEPTEMBER 2026. P.C : 1) This petition is filed seeking review of the judgment and order dated 1 April 2025. 2) I have heard Mr Kayande, the learned counsel appearing for the Review Petitioner and Mr. Wasif, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent-Management. 3) After having considered the submissions canvassed by the learned counsel appearing for the Review Petitioners, it is clear that the _____________________________________________________________________________ PAGE NOS. 1 of 3 Thursday, 3 September 2026 Neeta Sawant 7-RPW--147-2025.docx Review Petition is filed and argued as if it is an appeal in disguise. This Court has given detailed consideration to various points canvassed before it during the course of hearing of the Petition on 28 March 2025 and has rendered findings on each of the points. If there is any error in the said findings, the same cannot be sought to be corrected by filing a Review Petition. 4) The main point sought to be urged in the Review Petition is that this Court has erroneously accepted Tribunal s finding that Point ’ No.84 in the Roaster was reserved for OBC Category. Reliance is sought to be placed on a Roaster dated 15 September 1995, which is produced at page nos.159 to 163 of the Review Petition to demonstrate Point No.84 is for NT Category. However, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1 invites attention of this Court to Exhibit-O to the additional Affidavit filed in main Writ Petition (pages 164 to 169) to which Petitioner herself had produced a copy of roaster at Exhibit-O indicating that Point No.84 was reserved for OBC Category. He submits that this very Roaster was produced before the School Tribunal. He objects to production of new material directly in Review Petition. Apparently, the School Tribunal has taken note of the roaster which was placed before it and has thereafter recorded its findings. The Learned Counsel for Review Petitioner has attempted to demonstrate that the Tribunal has referred to the roaster dated 15 September 1995 which indicates Point No.84 as NT. However, he does not dispute the position that the Roaster dated 15 September 1995 is produced for the first time in the Review Petition. In review jurisdiction, this Court cannot rehear the entire matter like an Appellate Court. Based on material on record, the Court has recorded findings and the error, if any, in the findings cannot be corrected in review powers. In my view therefore, there is no reason for _____________________________________________________________________________ PAGE NOS. 2 of 3 Thursday, 3 September 2026 Neeta Sawant 7-RPW--147-2025.docx this Court to alter the findings recorded in the detailed judgment and order dated 1 April 2025. 5) No case is made out for review within the parameters of Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Review Petition is accordingly rejected. [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.] _____________________________________________________________________________ PAGE NOS. 3 of 3 Thursday, 3 September 2026 NEETA SHAILESH SAWANT Digitally signed by NEETA SHAILESH SAWANT Date: 2026.09.07 16:43:45 +0530