Bombay High Court
PANDURANG NARAYAN PATILversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR THE SECRETARY AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The review application is dismissed; although the erroneous superannuation statement is recalled, the petitioner is not identically placed with the other petitioners and therefore cannot receive the same relief.
Summary
The Aurangabad bench of the High Court of Bombay heard a review application filed by Pandurang Narayan Patil, who contested a prior order that incorrectly stated he had superannuated. Patil sought to recall that statement and obtain the same relief granted to other petitioners in related writ petitions concerning the 10% reservation quota for village panchayat employees. The court allowed the recall of the erroneous statement but held that Patil, having turned 45 in 2014, was not identically placed with the other petitioners who became age‑barred later, and therefore could not be included in the seniority list or receive appointments. Consequently, the review application was dismissed and the pending civil application was disposed of. The application for condonation of delay was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the statement that the petitioner was superannuated can be recalled.
- Whether the petitioner is identically placed with other petitioners for relief under the 10% reservation quota.
- Whether relief can be granted to a petitioner who became age‑barred in 2014.
- Whether the review application should be dismissed.
Subjects
- age bar
- superannuation
- reservation quota
- seniority list
- review application
- condonation of delay
- Zilla Parishad
- village panchayat
- 10% quota
- civil procedure
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:21450
1 ca5454.2026+
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5454 OF 2026
WITH
RAST/13831/2026
PANDURANG NARAYAN PATIL
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR THE SECRETARY AND
OTHERS
...
Advocate for Applicant / Petitioner :
Ms. Sharayu K. Dhanture h/f. Mr. Gore Ravindra Vitthal
AGP for Respondent/State: Mr. J. P. Reddy
Advocate for Non-applicant / Respondent No.4 :
Mr. N. E. Deshmukh
…
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5455 OF 2026
IN
RAST/13831/2026
...
CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER &
VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ.
DATE : 08.05.2026
PER COURT:
1. Heard.
2. The present Review Application is filed along with
application for condonation of delay of 44 days. The learned
counsel for the non-applicant / respondent has no objection for the
condonation of delay. Accordingly, the civil application for
condonation of delay is allowed.
2 ca5454.2026+
3. Ms. Sharayu K. Dhanture holding for Mr. Gore Ravindra
Vitthal, learned counsel for the Applicant has invited our attention
at Paragraph No.4 of the order dated 20.02.2026 under review,
wherein she made a statement that the the Applicant Pandurang
Narayan Patil / Petitioner in Writ Petition No.3110 of 2019 has
superannuated. In the present Review Application, she submits
that the Applicant / Petitioner – Pandurang Narayan Patil is not
superannuated and still working and the case of the Applicant /
Petitioner – Pandurang Narayan Patil would be identically placed
as the other petitioners in connected Writ Petition No.1964 of 2018,
Writ Petition No.1957 of 2018 and 2042 of 2018. She submits that
her statement may be permitted to be recalled and the relief
granted to the other Petitioners may also be granted to the
Applicant / Petitioner – Pandurang Narayan Patil in Writ Petition
No.3110 of 2019.
She is permitted to recall the statement. The statement
made in Paragraph No.4 of the order dated 20.02.2026 in Writ
Petition No.3110 of 2019 as noted above is recalled.
4. However, Mr. N. E. Deshmukh, the learned counsel
appearing for Respondent No.4 submits that the Applicant /
Petitioner – Pandurang Narayan Patil is not identically placed as
similar to the other Petitioners in connected writ petitions. He
3 ca5454.2026+
submits that his age was 45 years in the year 2014, whereas the
other Petitioners became age barred somewhere in the year 2017-
2018. The Division Bench of this court in Writ Petition No.8289 of
2019, by Judgment and Order dated 10.11.2025, has observed that
after 2015 till 2018 no steps whatsoever were taken for making
recruitment from the 10% quota of the employees of Village
Panchayat as a result of which the petitioners have crossed the age
of 45 years and they have been deprived from being absorbed in
the employment of Respondent No.3 - Zilla Parishad for no fault on
their part.
5. Considering the above factual situation the other
Petitioners were not at fault, this court permitted the Petitioners
to include their names in the seniority list and to give
appointments as per the seniority list.
6. However, the Petitioner / Review Applicant became
time barred on having attained the age of 45 years in the year
2014. The Zilla Parishad contends that 10% quota of employees of
village Panchayat were filled in prior to 2015 and the Petitioner
was not absorbed as he was not falling within the 10%. He further
submits that the Petitioner’s contention in the Writ Petition has
been that the juniors are appointed.
4 ca5454.2026+
7. In any event, the case of Review Applicant is not
identical to the connected Writ Petitions. He thus submits that no
relief can be granted to the Petitioner on the similar lines.
8. The learned counsel for the Applicant / Petitioner has
not been able to dispute this factual aspect that the Applicant /
Petitioner was age 45 years in 2014 and that the Zilla Parishad has
specifically contended before this court that they have to take in
10% reserved quota.
9. The Petitioner cannot be granted similar benefits as
granted to the Petitioners in connected Writ Petitions. Thus, no
case is made out for interference.
10. The Review Application stands dismissed.
11. In view of dismissal of the Review Application. Pending
Civil Application is also disposed of.
[VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, J.] [ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.]
marathe
Checking your session…