MRS. SANGEETA J. SHINDEversusRAJENDRA VASANT ZOPE and ORS.

Neeta Sawant                                               7-RPW--147-2025.docx


         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                     REVIEW PETITION NO. 147 OF 2025
                                      IN
                     WRIT PETITION NO. 6022 OF 2002


Mrs. Sangeeta J. Shinde                                    …..Petitioner
        : Versus :
Rajendra Vasant Zope & Ors.                                ….Respondents


Mr. Prashant G. Kayande, for the Review Petitioner.
Mr. Fuzil A. Wasif with Mr. Parag R. Zope, for Respondent No.1.
Mr. Mayuresh Modgi, for Respondent Nos.2 and 3.
Ms. Mansi Bane, AGP for State.




                                        CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
                                        DATED :       3 SEPTEMBER 2026.
P.C :

1)             This petition is filed seeking review of the judgment and
order dated 1 April 2025.

2)             I have heard Mr Kayande, the learned counsel appearing for
the Review Petitioner and Mr. Wasif, the learned counsel appearing for
the Respondent-Management.

3)             After having considered the submissions canvassed by the
learned counsel appearing for the Review Petitioners, it is clear that the

_____________________________________________________________________________

                               PAGE NOS. 1 of 3
                             Thursday, 3 September 2026
Neeta Sawant                                               7-RPW--147-2025.docx


Review Petition is filed and argued as if it is an appeal in disguise. This
Court has given detailed consideration to various points canvassed before
it during the course of hearing of the Petition on 28 March 2025 and has
rendered findings on each of the points. If there is any error in the said
findings, the same cannot be sought to be corrected by filing a Review
Petition.

4)              The main point sought to be urged in the Review Petition is
that this Court has erroneously accepted Tribunal’s finding that Point
No.84 in the Roaster was reserved for OBC Category. Reliance is sought
to be placed on a Roaster dated 15 September 1995, which is produced at
page nos.159 to 163 of the Review Petition to demonstrate Point No.84 is
for NT Category. However, the learned counsel appearing for the
Respondent No.1 invites attention of this Court to Exhibit-O to the
additional Affidavit filed in main Writ Petition (pages 164 to 169) to which
Petitioner herself had produced a copy of roaster at Exhibit-O indicating
that Point No.84 was reserved for OBC Category. He submits that this
very Roaster was produced before the School Tribunal. He objects to
production of new material directly in Review Petition. Apparently, the
School Tribunal has taken note of the roaster which was placed before it
and has thereafter recorded its findings.           The Learned Counsel for
Review Petitioner has attempted to demonstrate that the Tribunal has
referred to the roaster dated 15 September 1995 which indicates Point
No.84 as NT. However, he does not dispute the position that the Roaster
dated 15 September 1995 is produced for the first time in the Review
Petition.      In review jurisdiction, this Court cannot rehear the entire
matter like an Appellate Court. Based on material on record, the Court
has recorded findings and the error, if any, in the findings cannot be
corrected in review powers. In my view therefore, there is no reason for
_____________________________________________________________________________

                                PAGE NOS. 2 of 3
                              Thursday, 3 September 2026
               Neeta Sawant                                              7-RPW--147-2025.docx


               this Court to alter the findings recorded in the detailed judgment and
               order dated 1 April 2025.

               5)             No case is made out for review within the parameters of
               Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Review
               Petition is accordingly rejected.



         Digitally
         signed by
                                                              [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
         NEETA
NEETA    SHAILESH
SHAILESH SAWANT
SAWANT Date:
         2026.09.07
         16:43:45
         +0530




               _____________________________________________________________________________

                                              PAGE NOS. 3 of 3
                                            Thursday, 3 September 2026