IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 906 REVIEW APPLICATION (CIVIL) NO. 28 OF 2026 IN WP/12431/2022 Social and Cultural Association Through Its President VERSUS Iswar Ratan Chaudhari And Others ... Advocate for Applicant : Mr. V. D. Salunke h/f Mr. Khot Abhinay D AGP for Respondents-State: Ms. R. R. Tandale Advocate for Respondent No.3 in WP : Mr. P. N. Kutti Advocate for Respondent No.1 : Mr. R. I. Wakade ... CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. Dated : September 02, 2026 ORAL ORDER : 1. The present application for review is filed by the employer/Management seeking review of the judgment and order dated 19th August 2025 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.12431 of 2022, whereby the judgment and order dated 20th September 2022 passed by the learned University and College Tribunal, Aurangabad, in Appeal No.KBCNMU-2/2021 was quashed and set aside and the respondents were directed to reinstate the present respondent No.1/original petitioner in service on the post of Laboratory Attendant with continuity and all consequential benefits, without back wages. 2. The principal contention of Mr. V. D. Salunke, learned Advocate appearing for the review petitioner, is that this Court, while allowing the writ petition, failed to appreciate that the post of Laboratory Page 1 of 4 2026:BHC-AUG:40289 906 RA 28-2026 Attendant against which respondent No.1 was allegedly appointed in the year 2001 was sanctioned only subsequently. It is, therefore, contended that the appointment of respondent No.1 could not have been treated as a legal and valid appointment. 3. The learned Senior Advocate places reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Akola Municipal Corporation v. Secretary, Akola Zilla Nagar Parishad and Mahanagarpalika Thekedari Sanghatana, 2026:BHC-NAG:9837, to contend that unless an appointment is made against a sanctioned post, an employee cannot claim a right to regularization or continuation in service on such post. 4. It is not in dispute that respondent No.1 was appointed as a Laboratory Attendant in the year 2001 and continued to work as such for about 20 years. It is also not in dispute that the Management subsequently passed a resolution confirming the services of the respondent No.1 and that the institution was admitted to grant-in-aid, pursuant to which the salary of the respondent No.1 was being paid from Government grants. 5. The issue regarding sanction of the post was specifically considered by this Court while deciding the writ petition. In paragraph 13 of the judgment under review, the contention regarding the post of Laboratory Attendant having been sanctioned subsequently was noticed. In paragraph 18, this Court also Page 2 of 4 906 RA 28-2026 considered the fact that the respondent No.1 had continued in employment for a period of about 20 years and that his appointment had subsequently been approved and salary was being paid through Government grants. 6. It would be appropriate to deal with the second contention first, relating to the legality of the appointment. In the case at hand, respondent No. 1 was appointed somewhere in the year 2001. His services were terminated in the year 2021, that is, after a period of 20 years of continuous service. It is not in dispute that the appointment was subsequently approved, and the salary of the respondent employee was being disbursed by the State Government under the Grant-in-Aid scheme. This Court observed in paragraph 18 of the judgment under review that the peculiar facts of the case give rise to a presumption that the appointment of the respondent employee, who continued in service for a long period of 20 years, was a legal and valid appointment, particularly in view of the subsequent approval granted by the State Authority. 7. The judgment in the case of Akola Municipal Corporation (supra) will not come to the aid of the review petitioner. In that case, the employees were engaged through a contractor and sought regularization based on Model Standing Orders on the premise that they had completed more than 240 days of service in a calendar year. This Court held that unless the employment, even if temporary Page 3 of 4 906 RA 28-2026 or ad-hoc, is against a sanctioned post, the right of regularization upon completion of 240 days cannot be claimed by invoking Model Standing Orders. The foundation of that judgment was that the Municipal Corporation was not legally competent to create posts, and consequently lacked the competence to grant regularization to persons working against non-sanctioned posts. 8. In the present case, the institution is run by a private management, which appointed respondent No. 1 way back in 2001 and terminated his services in 2021 without holding a departmental/disciplinary inquiry. Furthermore, the termination is in 2021, by which time approval to the appointment had already been granted in 2008. Reliance on the judgment in Akola Municipal Corporation is, therefore, completely misplaced. 9. In light of the reasons recorded above, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case is made out to revisit the judgment with respect to the award of back wages, particularly having regard to the limited scope of review jurisdiction, which cannot be converted into an appeal. 10. The Review Application is, accordingly, dismissed. 11. There shall be no order as to costs. ( ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. ) vj gawade/-. Page 4 of 4