JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 17-6-2017 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Amravati in the review petition that was filed by respondent No.5 herein under provisions of Rule 24 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad District Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 (for short, the said Rules). 3. The respondent No.5 was aggrieved by the order of promotion dated 3-5-2012 issued in favour of the petitioner herein. By order dated 3-5-2012 the petitioner was promoted on the post of Junior College Teacher. The respondent No.5 being aggrieved by the order of promotion filed an appeal under Rule 14 of the said Rules challenging that order. That appeal came to be dismissed by the Divisional Commissioner on 27-6-2016. Thereafter, the respondent No.5 filed a review petition under Rule 24 of the said Rules and by the impugned order, the review petition came to be allowed. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has challenged that order. 4. It is submitted by Shri R.S. Khobragade, learned Counsel for the petitioner that the review petition under Rule 24 of the said Rules was not maintainable inasmuch as a review petition would be maintainable only in case of an order passed in an appeal imposing any of the penalties specified in Rule 4 of the said Rules. He submitted that the respondent No.5 was aggrieved by the order of promotion issued to the petitioner. The appeal filed by the respondent No.5 came to be dismissed. There was no question of any penalty as contemplated by Rule 4 being imposed and therefore the review petition itself was not maintainable. The Divisional Commissioner exercised jurisdiction which was not vested in him. It was therefore, submitted that on this ground alone the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 5. Shri Vikas Kulsange, learned Counsel for the respondent No.5 supported the impugned order. It was submitted that the objection regarding maintainability of the review petition was not raised before the Divisional Commissioner and therefore, it was not permissible for the petitioner to challenge the order passed in the review petition. He further submitted that the Divisional Commissioner has rightly set aside the promotion granted to the petitioner. 6. It was submitted that the objection regarding maintainability of the review petition was not raised before the Divisional Commissioner and therefore, it was not permissible for the petitioner to challenge the order passed in the review petition. He further submitted that the Divisional Commissioner has rightly set aside the promotion granted to the petitioner. 6. After hearing the respective Counsel I find that the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the Divisional Commissioner had no jurisdiction to entertain the review petition under Rule 24 of the said Rules deserves to be accepted. As per Rule 24, a review petition is maintainable only against an order passed in an appeal imposing any of the penalties specified in Rule 4 of the said Rules. Admittedly, the respondent No.5 was aggrieved by the order of promotion in favour of the petitioner. No penalty was imposed on the petitioner or the respondent No.5. Hence, no review petition was maintainable against the order deciding the appeal filed by the respondent No.5. On this short ground, the impugned order deserves to be set aside as it has been passed in excess of jurisdiction. 7. Accordingly, order dated 17-6-2017 passed by the Divisional Commissioner in exercise of review jurisdiction is quashed and set aside. 8. It is open for the respondent No.5 to challenge the order dated 27-6-2016 in appropriate proceedings. It is made clear that this Court has not examined the correctness of the reasons assigned in the order dated 27-6-2016. 9. The writ petition is allowed in aforesaid terms. No costs.