NOB - RA NO. 193 OF 2026+ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD REVIEW APPLICATION (CIVIL) NO. 193 OF 2026 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 10914 OF 2026 PRADNYA BHAURAO DHADE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS … AND REVIEW APPLICATION (CIVIL) (STAMP) NO. 29316 OF 2026 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 11164 OF 2026 AYESHA MOHD. AJAZ TADVI VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS … • Mr. Mohanish V. Thorat (through V.C.), Advocate a/w. Mr. Vishal V. Ghansawdh for the Applicant in RANo. 193 of 2026 • Mr. G. R. Syed, Advocate for the Applicant in RA(ST.) No. 29316 of 2026 • Mr. P. S. Patil, Addl. GP for the Respondent – State • Mr. Sachin V. Kuptekar, Advocate for Respondent – CET CELL … CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT & JITENDRA JAIN, JJ. DATE : 10th SEPTEMBER, 2026 PER COURT : 1. Not on board. Upon mentioning, taken on board. 2. Heard learned counsel for the Applicants and learned AGP for the State. Jhs/ 1/7 2026:BHC-AUG:41830-DB NOB - RA NO. 193 OF 2026+ 3. These applications are filed seeking review of the orders passed by this Court dated 25.08.2026 and 29.08.2026, respectively. 4. The challenge in the petitions was to the extent of not granting the benefit of extension of six months from the date of admission for submission of the caste/tribe validity certificate. The Social Welfare Department had issued a decision dated 02.07.2026 extending the time limit. The argument advanced was that the said Circular was made applicable only to persons belonging to the SEBC and OBC categories, whereas no such benefit was extended to students belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. This Court, after considering all the submissions, had specifically rejected the petitions. 5. The petitioners thereafter approached the Hon’ble Apex Court by filing Civil Appeal No. 31474 of 2026. It appears that the Hon’ble Apex Court was not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. Thereupon, the petitioner sought leave to withdraw the SLP with liberty to file a review application by pointing out the orders passed by the co-ordinate Benches, i.e. the order dated 03.09.2026 passed by the Principal Seat at Mumbai in Writ Petition No. 11526 of 2026 and the order dated 04.09.2026 passed in Writ Petition No. 4410 of 2026 by the Circuit Bench at Kolhapur. Jhs/ 2/7 NOB - RA NO. 193 OF 2026+ 6. The Principal Seat had granted the benefit of extension to the students in that petition belonging to the Scheduled Tribe category. The Court directed the State to take a decision on making the said Circular dated 02.07.2026 applicable to the other categories, i.e. Scheduled Tribes, Scheduled Castes, Vimukta Jatis and Nomadic Tribes. 7. It is now pointed out that, thereafter, a fresh Circular dated 04.09.2026 has been issued, wherein the benefit has been extended even to persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes. However, persons belonging to the Scheduled Tribes have still not been granted such benefit. The Circuit Bench of this Court at Kolhapur, therefore, passed an order observing, prima facie, that the benefit under the Government Circular dated 04.09.2026 be extended to the Scheduled Tribes as well. 8. Both the above orders were passed after this Court had passed the orders dated 25.08.2026 and 29.08.2026. It is sought to be argued that both these orders were subsequently found by the petitioners. 9. Learned Advocate Mr. Thorat relied upon the judgment in the case of Karnail Singh Vs. State of Haryana and Others; 2024 INSC 424. The principles laid down therein are as under:- Jhs/ 3/7 NOB - RA NO. 193 OF 2026+ “III. CONSIDERATION ON THE SCOPE OF REVIEW JURISDICTION 12. At the outset, we must reiterate that the scope of review by this Court is very limited. The scope of review jurisdiction has been delineated by this Court in a catena of judgments. We would not like to burden the present judgment by reproducing all those judgments. This Court in the case of Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati and others (supra), after surveying the earlier law laid down by this Court has summarized the principles thus: "Summary of the principles 20. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute: 20.1. When the review will be maintainable: (i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him; (ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; (iii) Any other sufficient reason.” 10. Learned Advocate Mr. Thorat for the Applicant thus submits that, though there is no mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, the present case is covered by clause (i), i.e. ‘discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him’. He further submits that clause (iii), i.e. “any other sufficient reason”, is also applicable to the present case. 11. On merits, he further relied upon the judgment in the case of Abhishek Sharma Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir; 2026 SCC OnLine SC 342 and submits that there has to be an intelligible differentia while making a classification. He thus submits that an Jhs/ 4/7 NOB - RA NO. 193 OF 2026+ order similar to the orders passed by the co-ordinate Benches be passed in the present review application as well. 12. Learned Advocate Mr. Syed also adopts the arguments advanced by Mr. Thorat. In his case also, an SLP bearing No. 32034 of 2026 was preferred. Though the order has not yet been uploaded, he makes a statement that today the Hon’ble Supreme Court has granted liberty to file a review application before this Court. 13. We have considered all these submissions. This Court, while dismissing the petition in the case of Pradnya Bhaurao Dhade, had specifically observed that the petitioner had approached this Court very late seeking a direction to decide her claim at the earliest. In the case represented by Mr. Syed, the claim was filed on 11.08.2026, making it virtually and practically impossible for any authority to decide the claim before the cut-off date fixed for admission. This conduct was also taken into consideration by this Court. 14. Learned AGP vehemently opposes the review applications. At the outset, he submits that no case is made out to entertain the review applications. He submits that it was pointed out to this Court that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Dilip Vitthal Bambale & Ors. Vs. Vinitkumar Motiram Totlod & Ors. in Civil Appeal Nos. 11234-11248 of 2017, has observed that no interim relief be granted in the matter of students. Jhs/ 5/7 NOB - RA NO. 193 OF 2026+ 15. He further submits that the Circulars which are being relied upon were issued by the Social Welfare Department. It is the Social Welfare Department which deals with persons belonging other than Scheduled Tribes, whereas it is the Tribal Welfare Department which deals with the cases pertaining to Scheduled Tribes. Since both Departments are different and operate in different fields, there is no discrimination as such. The Social Welfare Department can issue a Circular only in respect of persons belonging to to the Scheduled Castes and OBC categories and not in respect of persons belonging to the Scheduled Tribes. He, therefore, prays for rejection of the review applications. 16. We have considered the submissions. This Court, while passing the orders which are sought to be reviewed, had considered every aspect of the matter. There is no error apparent on the face of the record. 17. Secondly, the Applicants are now relying upon the orders passed by the co-ordinate Benches, which were passed after this Court had passed the orders in the writ petitions. Thus, it cannot be said to be a case falling under the ground of discovery of new and important matter or evidence. Similarly, the case would also not fall within clause (iii), i.e. “any other sufficient reason”. Jhs/ 6/7 NOB - RA NO. 193 OF 2026+ 18. We are not impressed by any of the arguments advanced on behalf of the Applicants. No case is made out for review of the orders. The Review Applications, therefore, stand dismissed. 19. It is clarified that it is open for the petitioners to point out the orders passed by the co-ordinate Benches to the concerned authorities. 20. With the aforesaid clarification, the Review Applications stand disposed of. 21. Parties to act on an authenticated copy of this order. [JITENDRA JAIN, J.] [KISHORE C. SANT, J.] Jhs/ 7/7