1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.726/2009 ( The Superiltending Engineer O & M Circle and others -: VERSUS :- Ashok S/o Champatrao Thakre & another ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Shri R.E. Mohril, Adv. for petitioners. Shri M.R. Pillai, Adv. for respondent no.1. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : JULY 22, 2010. Heard Adv. Shri Mohril for about 10 minutes. He contends that separate seniority lists are maintained for Class-IV employees. The employee like respondent no.1 (Mr. Thakre) whose name appears in seniority list of circle cannot be promoted to a post of 'Daftari' (Class-IV post) which was then available in division. According to him Mr. Shende respondent no.2 whose name appears in divisional seniority list has been rightly promoted and for it respondent no.1 could not have been looked into at all. He has invited attention of this Court to Maharashtra State Electricity Board Employees Seniority Regulations, 1961 particularly the Marathi pages 262 and 265. Clause 17 pointed out by him shows that division wise Class-IV seniority list is to be maintained for all categories having pay scale of Rs.1210/- or less. The circle wise seniority list is for categories whose pay scale exceeds Rs.1210/- and less than Rs.1515/-. With this background, he 2 has invited attention to Annexure 10 and a short list accompanying it (page 132) to show that name of respondent no.1 appears at serial no.2 in seniority list of circle. He is not in a position to explain how name of respondent no.1 can appear in that seniority list when his pay scale does not exceed Rs.1210/-. Adv. Shri Pillai has pointed out that Industrial Court has found that there was no seniority list circle wise prepared. The said finding's of fact. In view of this position, I am not inclined to interfere in writ jurisdiction. Writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. JUDGE Tambaskar.