Team Goemkarponn
PANAJI: The High Court of Bombay at Goa on Monday declined to entertain a review petition filed by a candidate challenging his non-selection to the post of Assistant Professor in the Department of Biochemistry at Goa University, ruling that no apparent error existed in its earlier decision to justify a review.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Suman Shyam and Justice Amit Jamsandekar held that the scope of review jurisdiction is extremely limited and cannot be used as a platform to re-examine the case on merits. The court observed that the petitioner was effectively seeking a fresh hearing, which is not permissible in review proceedings.
The review application was filed by Kashinath Dhumaskar against the High Court’s judgment dated July 30, 2025, which had dismissed his writ petition challenging the recruitment process initiated by Goa University through an advertisement issued on May 11, 2020.
Dhumaskar had applied for one of the two Assistant Professor posts reserved for OBC candidates. However, he secured 49 marks out of 100, falling short of the minimum qualifying requirement of 50 marks, and was therefore not selected.
In his review petition, Dhumaskar argued that the University had miscalculated his marks in violation of its own regulations and claimed entitlement to a five per cent relaxation as an OBC candidate. He also questioned the eligibility of a candidate appointed against an unreserved post, alleging that the mandatory residency certificate was not submitted within the prescribed timeline.
The petitioner further submitted that even if relief could not be granted with respect to the existing vacancies, his candidature should be considered against future vacancies, as the posts advertised in 2020 had since been filled.
Opposing the plea, Goa University informed the court that no candidate scoring below 50 per cent had been appointed and maintained that the petitioner’s claims were unfounded.
After considering the submissions, the Bench noted that all the issues raised in the review petition had already been examined by an earlier Division Bench and could not be revisited in review jurisdiction. The court held that the grounds put forth were matters that could only be agitated in an appeal and not through a review application.
The Bench also took into account that all advertised posts had already been filled and that the petitioner had failed to implead the selected OBC candidates, rendering the relief sought impractical. Entertaining the petition at this stage, the court said, would amount to an academic exercise with no tangible outcome.
On the challenge to the private respondent’s eligibility, the court accepted the University’s explanation that the candidate had fulfilled the eligibility criteria within the stipulated cut-off date and that submission of supporting documents at a later stage was uniformly permitted for all applicants.
Rejecting the plea for consideration against future vacancies, the court held that once appointments are made pursuant to a specific advertisement, the selection process comes to a close.
Concluding that the review petition lacked merit, the High Court dismissed it, without passing any order on costs.
