Arun Shankar Limje vs The Union Of India And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 3703 Bom

                                    1              917-RAST 12811-2020+.odt



               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                          BENCH AT AURANGABAD

           REVIEW APPLICATION (CIVIL) (ST.) NO. 12811 OF 2020
                  IN WRIT PETITION NO. 14702 OF 2019
 Mala D/o Madhukarrao Burde
 @ Mala w/o Rajendra Nagpure                                    .. Applicant
          Versus
 The Union of India and others                                  .. Respondents

 Mr. D. D Chaudhari, Advocate for the Applicant.
 Mr. A. G. Talhar, A.S.G. for Respondents.
                             WITH
       REVIEW APPLICATION (CIVIL) (ST.) NO. 13176 OF 2020
               IN WRIT PETITION NO. 14678 OF 2019
 Arun s/o Shankar Limje                           .. Applicant
          Versus
 The Union of India and others                                  .. Respondents
 Mr. D. D Chaudhari, Advocate for the Applicant.
 Mr. A. G. Talhar, A.S.G. for Respondents.

                               CORAM :   S. V. GANGAPURWALA &
                                         SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, JJ.

DATED : 26th February, 2021.

PER COURT:-

. Mr. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the applicants submits that

this Court dismissed the writ petitions filed by the writ petitioners,

however, the petitioners could not bring to the notice of this Court the

policy decision dated 27.11.2019. Under the said policy decision, the

respondents have decided that the employees from Halba Koshti/

Koshit/Halba communities will be arrayed in the general category as on

28.11.2000 and placed below the last of the general category candidate

1 of 2

2 917-RAST 12811-2020+.odt

and action in their case will be taken as per the said DoPt OM. The

learned counsel further submits that now the respondents have

directed the petitioners to get the order of this Court reviewed.

2. We have also heard Mr. Talhar, learned A.S.G. for respondents.

3. The issue before us in the writ petitions filed by the present

petitioners and the other writ petitioners was whether the petitioners

appointed from the reserved category are required to submit the

validity certificates and / or are exempted from submitting the validity

certificates. This Court negatived the contention of the petitioners

holding that the petitioners are required to submit the validity

certificates.

4. In the judgment under review we were not called upon to deal

with other policy decisions of the respondents. If the respondents have

taken other policy decisions, it is for the respondents and the

petitioners to abide by the policy decisions as may be prevailing as

those policy decisions were not subject matter of consideration before

this Court.

5. With these observations, review applications stand disposed of.

 ( SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI )                        ( S. V. GANGAPURWALA )
         JUDGE                                             JUDGE
 P.S.B.


                                                                             2 of 2