- (1.) Heard Mr. Goyanka, learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner. Mr. Vibhute, learned counsel for respondent No.1 (for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.5131/2015) and learned A.G.P. for respondents No.2 and 3. With the consent of the parties, review application is taken up for hearing disposal.
(2.) The applicant, M.S.R.T.C., Ratnagiri Division (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation for the sake of brevity) is before this Court by way of present review application, raising two grounds. The first ground is that, though notice was issued by this Court to the applicant i.e. respondent No.2 in writ Petition No.5131/2015, the notice was served and accepted by the concerned Clerk namely Mr. Manoj Madhav Nene of the Establishment Branch, Ratnagiri Division. It is stated in the review application that, Mr. Nene, who was served with the notice, failed to bring this fact to either the Establishment Officer or the Divisional Personnel Officer. As such, the applicant who was discharging his duties as Divisional Controller, failed to submit the response. It is stated in the review application that the applicant only came to know about the proceedings and the order passed by this Court when the respondent No.1 (original petitioner) has served copy of the order to the applicant on 8.7.2016. It is further stated that, the applicant then immediately made an enquiry in the office and came to know that Mr. Nene failed to inform the applicant or the office about the notice. It is stated that, non appearance before this Court was due to mistake of the subordinate official of the Corporation and the non- appearance before this Court is an act purely unintentional. The applicant also submits that, he tendered his unconditional apology for the mistake of non-appearance before this Court in spite of service of notice.
(3.) The second ground raised in the review application challenging the order is by assigning a reason that, the claim of the petitioner for the post of Conductor (Junior) was not considered on account of not possessing the requisite qualification. The learned counsel for the applicant made an attempt to support this ground by inviting our attention to a document placed on record at Exhibit E. It is stated in the said document that, the licence submitted by the petitioner at the time of verification of documents was not operational as the period of licence was already expired on 7/12/2012.;