1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD Writ Petition No.188 Of 2005 Dr Chandrakant Rambhau Palve ... Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra and others. ... Respondents. -------- Shri. N.B. Suryawanshi, Advocate for petitioner. Shri. V.B. Ghatge, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No.1. Shri. M.N. Navandar, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 to 4. -------- CORAM: NARESH H PATIL & K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE: 9th AUGUST, 2010 PER COURT : 1) Heard. 2) The petitioner seeks directions to respondent Nos.2 and 3 to grant promotion to 2 the petitioner as Assistant Professor in Agriculture Chemistry and Soil Science from the category of NT (D) with deemed date with all consequential benefits with effect from 29-9-1997. 3) Consequent to the notice issued, respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed affidavit-in- reply. The respondents contend that in the light of the Government Resolution five years confidential reports of the candidates including the petitioner were considered. A Selection Committee was constituted for the purpose of recommending names of candidates for promotion. The Selection Committee did not recommend name of the petitioner for promotion to the cadre of Assistant Professor. The Committee recommended names of respondent Nos.5 to 9. Reliance is placed on Government Resolution dated 23-12-2002. It is further 3 contended that, in accordance with the distribution, 18 posts which were to be filled in by promotion, are described in the affidavit. As per the distribution of posts, two posts from the category of DT/NT were to be filled in and they were filled as per the roster attached to the Government Resolution dated 18-10-1997. 4) The deponent contends that, as per the ratio and the roster point, 17 posts were to be filled by way of promotion and 17 posts were to be filled in by way of nomination as in the year 2001 there were 34 sanctioned posts in the cadre of Assistant Professor of Agriculture Chemistry and Soil Science. The ratio of promotion and nomination was 50 : 50. 5) The learned counsel appearing for the University submits that the Selection 4 Committee considered name of the petitioner, who was on the waiting list to be appointed by nomination and accordingly as per the availability of vacancy the petitioner has already been appointed as Assistant Professor in Agriculture Chemistry and Soil Science as per order dated 1-11-12004 and the petitioner has been discharging his duties in that position since then. 6) We have considered the submissions, the pleadings of the parties, relevant Government Resolutions placed on record and the relevant Statutes of the Maharashtra Agricultural Universities (Krishi Vidyapeeths) Statutes, 1990. We find substance in the contentions raised by the counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3. The affidavit-in-reply reasonably explains the legal position and the procedure adopted in 5 selecting candidates. We do not find any unreasonability or glaring error in the screening procedure in respect of promotion of the petitioner to the said post. 7) In the facts of the case we find that the petitioner is not entitled to claim deemed date of promotion with consequential benefits. In exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction, we do not notice that interference is warranted by this Court. 8) The writ petition is accordingly rejected. Sd/- Sd/- (K.K. TATED, J.) (NARESH H PATIL, J.) rsl/ wp.188.05