The judgment established that the qualifications required for the appointment to the posts in the Scrutiny Committee were not prescribed by law or executive directions, and the constitution of the Scrutiny Committees was done on the basis of the Madhuri Patil's judgment.

A. H. JOSHI, J.:- This Court had issued notice official disposal returnable on 9th April, 2010.

2. This application for review is opposed by respondent No.2 as well by respondent No.3 by filing their respective affidavits.

3. Heard learned Adv. Mr. S. R. Narnaware for the petitioner, learned AGP Mr. S. S. Doifode for respondent No.1. learned Adv. Mr. S. M. Puranik for respondent No.3 and learned Adv. Mr. Abhay Sambre for respondent No.3.

4. The grounds, which are put forth on which review is sought, are narrated in paras 1 to 9 of the Review Application, which are summarized as follows :-

[a] Summary of point raised in Paras 1, 3 & 9 :-

The Appointment Order did not indicate that the applicant-petitioner was appointed on a post reserved for a tribal candidate. Though applicant's tri be claim was invalidated, her employment was liable to be protected in view of judgment in case of Milind Katware and many similar cases decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court.

[b] Summary of point raised in Paras 4 & .8.:-

Shri. K. M. Pathak. Member of Scrutiny Committee, holds qualification of B.Com., and Master of Social Work. He does not hold Master's degree in Sociology or Anthropology which are the qualifications prescribed in Govt. Resolution dated 9th July. 1998. Hence he is not qualified to act as a Research Officer or to work as a Member of Scrutiny Committee.

[c] Summary of point raised in Paras 5 & 6:

The Govt., directives contained in Govt. Resolution dated 5th July, 2006 are not followed.

[d] Summary of point raised in Para 7:

In Writ Petition No.2527 of 2009. this Court has set aside constitution of Committee, as it was in violation of directions contained in Madhuri Patil' s case.

5. Apart from the points raised in the body of application, the applicant has filed Civil Application No.451 of 2010 for production of documents on record. By this application, the applicant wants to bring on record a fact that Senior Research Officer - Shri. V. C. Patil holds qualifications of B.Com., and Master of Social Work, and has joined the Scrutiny Committee at Nagpur on 17th June. 2009. It is thereby suggested that Mr. V. C. Patil does not hold the qualification of M.A. in Anthropology or Sociology. It is alleged that the educational qualification of said Mr. Patil is not in conformity with the Govt. Resolution dated 9th July. 1998.

6. Learned Adv., also relies upon the reply received by the President of Adiwasi Koli Employees' Union, Maharashtra State,Akola. which is dated 3rd June, 2009 [Annexure-12]. It is stated in this letter that in compliance with the directions contained in the judgment in case of Madhuri Patil. directions are issued to appoint members of Scrutiny Committee and Research Officers who are well acquainted with the background regarding anthropology and having knowledge about the tribes.

7. Learned Adv. Mr. Narnaware did not press during oral submissions, or otherwise persuaded this Court on any other point. except the point relating to lack of qualification of Mr. K. M. Pathak and Mr. V. C. Patil.

8. Based on the averments referred to in Paras 4 to 6, during oral submissions, learned Adv. Mr. Narnaware has argued following points :

[a] A pleading that Mr. K. M. Pathak does not possess requisite qualification to act as a Research Officer, was incorporated in the Writ Petition. however, this point has not been discussed and ruled upon in the Judgment delivered in Writ Petition No.5008 of 2009.

[b] As Shri. K. M. Pathak was associated with the Committee, the decision and Judgment delivered by the Committee is nullity being in violation of the directions contained in Madhuri Patil's Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court.

[c] Similarly. as Mr. V. C. Patil does not hold requisite qualification, the decision of the Scrutiny Committee is void.

9. While arguing the point of lack of eligibility of Mr. K. M. Pathak. learned Advocate Mr. Narnaware has placed reliance on :

[a] The heading of the Govt. Resolution dated 9th July. 1998 [Annex.3 to Review Applicati