1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 366 OF 2009 Rajendra Eknath Kante ..Petitioner versus The Dairy Development Commissioner, Maharashtra State and others ..Respondents Mr. N.V. Bandiwadekar for Petitioner Smt. S.S. Bhende, AGP for Respondent No. 1, 2 and 4 CORAM : D. D. SINHA & A. A. SAYED , JJ. DATED : FEBRUARY 1, 2010. P.C. 1 Heard Mr. Bandiwadekar, leaned Counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. S.S. Bhende, AGP for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4. The writ petition is directed against the order dated 11th June, 2008, passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, wherein the Original Application No.469 of 2007 filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed by the Tribunal. The grievance of the petitioner is two fold. No.1 that the petitioner was appointed as Dairy Guide with effect from 10th January, 1989 by order dated 19th January, 1989. It is contended that the petitioner was not given promotion to the post of Bottle Checker or any other equivalent post, which was given to the other similar circumstanced employee Mr. Chavan on the basis of order of the Industrial Court. The petitioner had approached this Court by filing earlier Writ Petition No.3606 of 1997 which was decided by this Court on 24th 2 March, 2006. In that order this Court has observed that the case of the petitioner needs to be considered at par with Mr. Chavan for the purpose of grant of promotion. 2 The learned Counsel for the petitioner further contended that the State Government failed to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of promotion. The petitioner approached the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal by filing original application which came to be rejected by the impugned order. Hence the present writ petition. It is contended that it was not open for the Tribunal to give go bye to the observations made by this Court in the above referred judgment and hold that the appointment of the petitioner was ad-hoc and temporary. It is contended that the observations made by the Tribunal is therefore not sustainable in law in the light of the observations made by the Division Bench of this court. 3 The learned AGP supported the impugned order and contended that after the decision of the Division Bench of this Court dated 24th March, 2008 referred to hereinabove, the case of the petitioner was considered. However, the petitioner was not found eligible for promotion since at the relevant time he was not in service since 2003. 4 We have considered the contention canvassed by the respective Counsel and perused the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. The relevant findings recorded by the Tribunal are in para 8 which reads thus:- “The claim is putforth by the applicant under the backdrop of the order dated 18.12.2006. The applicant is seeking an order of promotion. The order dated 18.12.2006 also indicates that the applicant was initially temporarily appointed as Part Time Guide. He has been appointed as Bottle Checker in the pay scale of Rs. 3200-4900. The applicant therefore, is seeking promotion to the 3 post of Bottle Checker from his initial post of Part Time Guide. Having regard to the order of appointment dated 19.1.1989, the initial appointment of the applicant itself being Part Time Guide and that too temporary, thus, that appointment order is not in terms of constitutional scheme as spelt out by the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi, reported in 2006 AIR SCW page 1991 equivalent to 2006 Volume No.4 SCC page 1. Thus, that appointment is of no help to the applicant to claim promotion on the basis whatever further promotion is only on the basis of the order dated 18.12.2006. Thus, for the matter, in our opinion, the applicant cannot claim an order of promotion or direction to that effect which is evident from relief clause and having regard to this and the facts those are brought on record and particularly the judgment of this Tribunal which is confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court subject to direction to appoint the applicant in the light of Industrial Court's judgment in favour of Shri Manohar K. Chavan. The applicant was appointed in compliance of the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court. Thus, in our opinion, in particular having regard to statement made by the Respondents in their reply, we find no substance in the application. The applicant is not entitled for any relief in this application. The Original Application is dismissed with no order as to costs." 5 In the backdrop of the above referred facts and circumstances and findings recorded by the Tribunal, the petition does not succeed, particularly since his initial appointment itself was purely temporary/ad- hoc, hence, question of right to be considered for regular promotion did not arise. 6 In the circumstances, no case is made out. Writ petition is dismissed. (D. D. SINHA, J.) ( A. A. SAYED, J.) 4