T.V. Nalawade, J.

1. Rule, rule made returnable forthwith. Heard both the sides by consent for final disposal.

2. The application is filed for review of the judgment and order of this Court delivered in Writ Petition No.4457/2006. The writ petition was filed by present respondent No.1, teacher (Lecturer) against present applicant-management and present respondent No.2, the University. Following reliefs were claimed :

"(A) To direct the Respondents 1 and 2 to apply for de-reservation of post of Lecturer in English reserved for Scheduled Tribes and take necessary steps for dereservation of posts, as provided under Govt. Resolution dated 5th December 1994, by issuing a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, as the case may be.

(B) To grant interim injunction restraining the respondents, their agents, subordinates and servants from making any appointment against the post of Lecturer in English pursuant to the advertisement published in daily "Lokmat" in its issue dated 13-5- 2006 (Exh. "A-3") pending hearing and final disposal of this petition.

(C) To direct the Respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner as Lecturer in English, pending hearing and final disposal of this Petition.

(D) To grant any other relief to which the petitioner is entitled to.

(E) To quash the decision of the Management Council, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, Aurangabad rejecting the recommendations of the University Grievance Redressal Committee in respect of regularization of services of the petitioner in its meeting held on 29.1.2003, by issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, as the case may be."

3. This Court has granted following reliefs to the respondent - teacher:-

"74. (i) Writ petition is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (A) and (E). Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms. In view of disposal of the writ petition, civil application does not survive and is disposed of. No order as to costs.

(ii) The respondent nos.1 and 2 are directed to appoint the petitioner on the said post of Lecturer in English in open category with retrospective effect.

(iii) The petitioner would be at liberty to press relief of back wages and continuity of service in pending appeal before the University and College Tribunal. The University and College Tribunal to decide the said prayer for back wages and continuity of service after considering the observation made and conclusion drawn in this order.

(iv) The respondent nos.1 and 2 shall comply with this order within four weeks from the date of this order.

(v) Parties to act on the authenticated copy of this order."

4. Learned counsel for the applicant-management submitted that the review is necessary as there are following errors which are apparent on the face of the record. (a) That, the respondent-teacher was never appointed as full time Lecturer and throughout she worked only as Lecturer on Clock Hour Basis and for some time on contract basis under bond and so she could not have been treated as regular employee, working as full time Lecturer. In spite of this circumstance this Court by giving the relief of regularization treated the respondent-teacher as full time Lecturer.

(b) That, the respondent-teacher was never qualified right from her initial appointment after interviews conducted by the statutory committee of the University in the year 1996 to get appointment to the post of Lecturer in English for Degree course. She had not passed NET/SET which was the requirement since the year 1991 and even for her appointment on Clock Hour Basis ("CHB"), she was not qualified.

(c) That, from prior to 1996 the post against which the respondent-teacher was appointed on CHB was reserved for S.T. category and this post was never de-reserved even on the date of the decision of the writ petition. In the past there were two sanctioned posts for English subject. One post was for open category and one was for S.T. category and only in the