1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 734 OF 2010 Champalal S/o Dhondiram Chikse .... PETITIONER V E R S U S The State of Maharashtra & Oths. .... RESPONDENTS Mr. S.C.Yeramwar, Advocate holding for Mr. A.S.Golegaonkar, Advocate for petitioner. Mr.K.G.Patil, Assistant Govt. Pleader for State. CORAM : P.V.HARDAS & S.V.GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 12/04/2010 PER COURT : 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, by which the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs : “ (B) To direct the respondent nos. 2 and 3 to issue the order of promotion in favour of petitioner to the post of Orthotic Technician in the Pay Scale of Rs. 1400 – 2300/- against the vacant post at any place by issuing appropriate writ, orders or directions, as the case may be. 2 (C) To direct the respondent nos. 2 and 3 to issue the order of promotion in favour of petitioner to the post of Orthotic Technician in the Pay Scale of Rs. 1400-2300/- against the vacant post at any place pending hearing and final disposal of this Writ Petition by way of interim relief ”. Incidentally, it may stated that the petitioner had filed Original Application No. 1026 of 1999 before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Aurangabad Bench ( For short, ‘ Tribunal ’ ) and the Tribunal by its Order dated 14/09/2009, rejected the said Original Application. There is no challenge to the said order passed by the Tribunal in the present petition. 2. Be that as it may, the petitioner had filed Original Application before the Tribunal contending therein that he has been wrongly denied the promotion to the post of Orthotic Technician or Prosthetic Technician. The Tribunal in its order has reproduced the qualifications as per the rules. Learned counsel, who had appeared on behalf of the applicant before the Tribunal, conceded that the petitioner herein did not held the requisite qualification. It was urged before the Tribunal that the persons who are not qualified, had been appointed to the said post. The Tribunal has very rightly observed that the petitioner had not challenged the selection of these persons, who had been appointed nor the petitioner has joined them as respondents. The Tribunal has also observed that erroneous promotion granted can not be treated as precedent nor the petitioner can claim that he has right to be considered though he does not possess the requisite qualification. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and we do not notice any perversity in the reasoning of the Tribunal to warrant 3 interference in this petition. Consequently, this petition sans merit, is dismissed with no order as to costs. [ S.V.GANGAPURWALA ] [ P.V.HARDAS ] JUDGE JUDGE knp/ WP 1911.10