4-MCA-640-2026 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 640 OF 2026 (REVIEW) IN WRIT PETITION NO. 5718 OF 2024 (D) (Zilla Parishad, Yavatmal Vs. Azharbaigg Fahimabaig Mirza & Ors.) AND MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 641 OF 2026 (REVIEW) IN WRIT PETITION NO. 6194 OF 2024 (D) (Zilla Parishad, Yavatmal Vs. Jayashree d/o Vijay Kawale & Ors.) __________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. Mr. Nalin Majithia, Counsel for the applicant. Mr. Ajinkya Reddy with Mr. V.S. Wankhade, Counsel for non- applicant no.1. Mr. S.B. Bissa, A.G.P. for non-applicant no.2/State. Ms. Samruddhi Wadyalkar, Counsel for non-applicant no.3. ..... CORAM : ANIL L. PANSARE AND NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, JJ. OCTOBER 13, 2026 Heard. 2] By these two applications, the review applicant/original respondent no.2 – Zilla Parishad, is seeking to review an order dated 10/4/2026 passed by this Court in Writ Petition Nos. 6194/2024 and 5718/2024. By the impugned order, we have issued following directions considering the peculiar facts : “9] Thus, the situation is such, which, as such, is a result of the mistake committed by respondent nos. 1 and 2, where we find that the petitioner was best suited for the post, at the same time, to displace respondent no.3, at this stage, will cause irreparable losses to her. When enquired as to the availability of posts to accommodate the petitioner, the learned A.G.P., on instructions, submits that two posts are available to accommodate both the petitioners, 2026:BHC-NAG:13752-DB 4-MCA-640-2026 2 i.e., petitioner in Writ Petition No. 6194/2024 and petitioner in Writ Petition No. 5718/2024, though the posts are not for reserved category. 10] That being so, and as a one time measure, which otherwise shall be not treated as a precedent for any purpose, we direct respondent nos. 1 and 2 to consider candidature of the petitioner for the post of ‘Pharmacy Officer’ reserved for Scheduled Caste (Female Category) and economically weaker category, which otherwise are deprived classes, if there is no other legal impediment. Necessary steps shall be taken within four weeks from today. 11] As regards seniority of the petitioner, the Appointing Authority shall consider the same in the light of the peculiar facts of the case, where the petitioner ought to have been appointed on the date when the first appointment was made.” 3] The aforesaid directions were issued in context with an advertisement for the post of Pharmacy Officer. The eligibility Clause to submit the candidature was that, on 25/8/2023, the candidate should be a Graduate/Diploma holder in Pharmacy, and along with that, should be registered under the provisions of the Pharmacy Act, 1948 (for short “the said Act’). One of the Clauses in the advertisement was, whether the candidate is a registered Pharmacist under the said Act. The original respondent no.3, though answered in the affirmative, was, admittedly, not registered at the relevant time. Despite such status, the Selection Committee approved her candidature based on the marks scored by her. 4] Thus, respondent no.3 was, on the date of the application, not eligible to be appointed as a Pharmacy Officer. Nonetheless, since she was appointed in June – 2024, and since it was revealed that the original petitioner was the one, who was eligible in terms of the 4-MCA-640-2026 3 conditions of the advertisement, as a one time measure, we had passed the impugned order. 5] Respondent no.2 has filed the present application on the ground that certain technical issues have been not considered by the Court. 6] The first ground, according to the applicant, is that the decision under question has been taken by the District Selection Committee. 7] This fact has been noted by us in our order. The said plea by itself cannot be a ground to review the judgment. The decision taken by the District Selection Committee was faulted with by us. 8] The second ground, as put forth, is that the original respondent no.3 scored highest marks than the petitioner. 9] This ground, again, has been considered, in the sense, our judgment refers to the conditions of the advertisement, one of which was that, the candidate should be registered under the said Act. The applicant does not dispute that the original respondent no.3 was not registered at the relevant time. Despite such status, the plea of respondent no.3 securing highest marks is put forth, which, according to us, is known to the applicant to be a plea not available to seek review. 10] The third plea, as put forth, is that the post cannot be filled-in unless it is sanctioned by the State Government. 4-MCA-640-2026 4 11] We may note here that the directions issued by us were based on the statement made by the learned A.G.P. upon our query, wherein the learned A.G.P. informed that two posts are available to accommodate both the original petitioners and respondent no.3. If such was the status, the applicant ought to have approached the State Government to seek approval to fill-in the posts, as directed by this Court. Instead, the applicant has filed the review application. 12] Thus, in a way, the applicant has made an attempt to re-argue the case, which is not permissible in review jurisdiction. 13] The applications are, accordingly, rejected. (NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, J.) (ANIL L. PANSARE, J.) Sumit Signed by: Mr. Sumit Agrawal Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 13/10/2026 17:06:56