IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.173 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1323 OF 2009 Mr. Ramesh Shamrao Pokharnikar ... Appellant Versus Mrs. Anita Vinod Salunkhe and others. ... Respondents Appellant in person. Mr. N.P. Deshpande for the Respondent No.1. Ms. Neeta V. Masurkar for the respondent No.2. CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & A.M. KHANWILKAR, J. DATED : 27TH JULY, 2009 P.C. We have heard the appellant who appears in person. The learned Single Judge vide impugned order had mentioned interalia the following main issues: Firstly it has been held that the direction of the Tribunal to prepare a fresh seniority list was sustainable in law and as such no interference was invited. However, as the appellant before the Tribunal had no opportunity to challenge the fresh seniority list, he was held to be entitled to challenge the same. The petitioner was also held to be entitled to file regular appeal against fresh order of promotion. Secondly, as far as the question of reservation was concerned, it was kept open and it was found that to that extent finding of the Tribunal was liable to be set aside. 2. The grievance of the present appellant that the private respondent was not permanent head of the department and was merely officiating and therefore, remedy is not available has been rendered inconsequential as the appellant has been given complete opportunity to challenge the fresh seniority list and the learned Single Judge has kept all the issues open. 3. We see no reason to interfere. Appeal is dismissed. Liberty to the appellant as granted by the learned Single Judge. CHIEF JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.