1 pb-1-ra-158-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD REVIEW APPLICATION (CIVIL) NO. 158 OF 2026 IN WP/7061/2014 Harishchandra Wamanrao Awari VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary And Another ... Mr. B. A. Darak, Advocate for Applicant Mr. R. S. Wani, AGP for Respondent-State Mr. M. M. Navandar, Advocate for Respondent no.2 ….. CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT & AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, JJ. DATED : 31ST AUGUST, 2026 P.C. :- . Heard learned Advocate for the applicant, learned Advocate for respondent no.2 and learned AGP for respondent-State. 2. The order sought to be reviewed is the order dated 03.08.2026, passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.7061 of 2014. It is an admitted fact that the applicant was temporarily promoted on 06.05.2010. However, substantive promotion was given to him in the year 2014. It was argued that Mr. Bhagyawant, who happened to be junior to the petitioner, was promoted prior to the petitioner. It is also admitted that he was given promotion on the post reserved for a person belonging to Scheduled Caste category. The present applicant 2026:BHC-AUG:39733-DB 2 pb-1-ra-158-2026 belongs to the Open category. As such, there was no question of special concession. This point was already argued before this Court. This Court by considering all the aspects granted deemed date of promotion as 06.05.2010. 3. Learned Advocate Mr. B. A. Darak has made the same submissions which were advanced during the course of hearing of the Writ Petition, which have already been considered by this Court. Merely because the post was vacant since 19.07.2007, there is no ground to grant deemed date of promotion from the said date. It is not the case of the petitioner that any person junior to him belonging to the same category was given promotion prior to him. The main submission was that since the petitioner became eligible on 19.07.2007, he ought to have been promoted from the said date. 4. We find that merely because a person becomes eligible for promotion, it does not confer any right upon him to claim promotion from the date on which he became eligible. In any case, no error apparent on the face of record is pointed out. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malleeswari Vs. K. Suguna and Another, reported at 2025 INSC 1080, has laid down the criteria for entertaining a Review. We do not find that any case is made out even to entertain 3 pb-1-ra-158-2026 the Review Application considering in view of the principles laid down in the said judgment. Considering above, the Review Application stands dismissed. [AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J] [KISHORE C. SANT, J.] Rushikesh/2026