- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2201 OF 2003 ... Pravin S. Rahangdale & ors. ...Petitioners v/s. Superintending Engineer, MSEB & Ors. ...Respondents ... Mr.Prafulla B.Shah for the Petitioners. Mrs.A.R.S.Baxi for Respondents. ... CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & V.M.KANADE, JJ. DATED: 5TH MARCH, 2008 P.C.: 1. There are seven Petitioners. At the out set, the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners states that the Petitioners Nos.1, 3, 5 ,6 & 7 have been promoted and therefore, their grievance does not survive. He submits that the grievance of only - 2 - Petitioners Nos. 2 & 4 survives. Their grievance is that certain persons who were junior to them in the cadre of UDC (Upper Divisional Clerk) were shown senior to them by giving deemed date of promotion in the seniority list and therefore, they were denied promotions. 2. On behalf of the Respondents an affidavit has been filed by one Mr.Arjun Sakharam Naik dated 27th June, 2006. In paragraph 3, so far as Petitioners Nos. 2 & 4 are concerned, it is stated that the Petitioners Nos. 2 & 4 have joined Kalyan Circle and had requested transfer and therefore they lost their seniority, in view of the provisions of Regulation 21(a) of the Maharashtra State Electricity Board Employees’ Service Regulation. It is further stated that the deemed date of promotion was granted to certain Upper Divisional Clerks as per the Administrative Circular No.140 and that circular was issued because of the directions issued by this Court by its judgment in Writ Petitioner No.4687 of 1988. It is further submitted that the seniority list giving deemed date to certain employees was provisionally published. Petitioners Nos. 2 & 4 did not raise any objection to that provisional list and - 3 - therefore, according to the Respondents, Petitioners Nos. 2 & 4 are not entitled to challenge the final seniority list. From the affidavit it is clear that according to the Respondents, seniority has been fixed on the principles contained in the Administrative Circular No.140. In our opinion, once this affidavit was filed, it was for the Petitioner to amend the petition and to challenge the Administrative Circular No.140. The Petitioners have not done that. In the absence of challenge to the Administrative Circular No.140, which is the basis of the seniority list, in our opinion, the Petitioners’ challenge to the seniority list cannot be entertained. The statements made by the Respondents that the seniority list was provisionally published and objections were called and the Petitioners Nos. 2 & 4 did not raise any objection, have remained unchallenged. In our opinion, as the Petitioners Nos. 2 & 4 did not raise any objection to the provisional seniority list they will not be justified in challenging the final seniority list. We, thus, find no substance in the petition. Petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed. Rule discharged with no order as to costs. - 4 - (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (V.M.KANADE, J.)