1 IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.298 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.8254 OF 2009 Shri.Chetan Shaligram Gajbhiye. ...Applicant vs. 1.The State of Maharashtra & ors. ...Respondents --- Mr.N.V.Bandiwadekar i/b. Mr.P.V.Nelson Rajan, for Applicant. Mr.N.P.Deshpande, AGP for Respondent nos.1 & 2. Mr.Sanjay Kshirsagar, for Respondent no.3. --- CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & A.R.JOSHI, JJ. DATED: 17TH FEBRUARY,2010 P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for both the sides. Civil application is granted in terms of prayer clause (a). (D.K.DESHMUKH,J.) (A.R.JOSHI,J.) 2 IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8254 OF 2009 Shri.Chetan Shaligram Gajbhiye. ...Applicant vs. 1.The State of Maharashtra & ors. ...Respondents --- Mr.N.V.Bandiwadekar i/b. Mr.P.V.Nelson Rajan, for Applicant. Mr.N.P.Deshpande, AGP for Respondent nos.1 & 2. Mr.Sanjay Kshirsagar, for Respondent no.3. --- CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & A.R.JOSHI, JJ. DATED: 17TH FEBRUARY,2010 P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for petitioner. We find that the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal was perfectly justified in holding that the State Government has misread the order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative 3 Tribunal dated 22.1.2008. All that was done by that order was that the State Government was directed to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner dated 5.10.2006. The Government, however, proceeded as if that the relief claimed by that representation was granted by the Tribunal and the D.P.C. has constituted to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion. 2. In our opinion, before constituting D.P.C. for considering the case of the petitioner for promotion, it was necessary to decide the representation of the petitioner of the year 2006 and after recording a finding that the petitioner had made out a case for reconsideration, the D.P.C. could have been constituted. Because of the result of reconsidering the case of the petitioner for promotion, the settled seniority position for 18-20 years was to be disturbed. In our opinion, the view taken by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal does not require to be interfered with by this Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 4 of the Constitution of India. The petition, therefore, is rejected. (D.K.DESHMUKH,J.) (A.R.JOSHI,J.) ---