1 5-ra-137-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD REVIEW APPLICATION (CIVIL) NO. 137 OF 2026 IN WP/12563/2022 Archana Marotrao Badhe VERSUS Anusaya Naranrao Sawargave ... Mr. S. V. Dixit, Advocate for Applicant Mr. R. S. Wani, AGP for Respondent-State Mr. Chandrakant A. Jadhav, Advocate for Respondent no.3/Mah. Nursing Council. ….. CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT & AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, JJ. DATED : 31ST AUGUST, 2026 P.C. :- . Heard learned Advocate for the applicant and learned AGP for respondent-State. 2. Review of the order dated 01.07.2026 passed in Writ Petition No.12563 of 2022 and Writ Petition No.1800 of 2023 is sought. 3. Learned Advocate Mr. S. V. Dixit vehemently argued that, this Court though recorded the submission as regards territorial jurisdiction, has not discussed and specifically answered the said issue. Second submission is as regards Writ of quo warranto. He submits that the present applicant was given a temporary charge and was not appointed to a substantive post. Therefore, considering above, no writ of quo warranto would lie. For this purpose, he rely upon the judgment reported in (2006) 11 SCC 731 in the case of 2026:BHC-AUG:39730-DB 2 5-ra-137-2026 B. Srinivasa Reddy Vs. Karnataka urban water supply and Drainage Board Employees’ Assn. And Others, specifically paragraph nos.43 and 88. 4. So far as the judgment in the case of B. Srinivasa Reddy supra, is concerned, the same was not pointed out to this Court. Though on the point of territorial jurisdiction, there is no specific finding, this Court has considered the judgments in Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Anr, reported in (2004) 6 SCC 254 and in the case of Lt. Col. Khajoor Singh Vs. Union of India, reported in AIR 1961 SC 532. In that view, this Court has clearly recorded a finding that this Court has jurisdiction and the petition was entertained. 5. Admittedly, the judgment in the case of B. Srinivasa Reddy supra was not pointed out to this Court, this Court thus finds that no error on the face of record as such is pointed out. In view of the judgment in the case of Malleeswari Vs. K. Suguna and Another, reported at 2025 INSC 1080 and considering that no parameters under Section 114 of the Civil Procedure Code are made out, this Court finds that there is no merit in the application. The Review Application stands dismissed. [AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J] [KISHORE C. SANT, J.] Rushikesh/2026