1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3115 OF 2009 Babaso V. Patil & Ors. ....Petitioners V/s. Kolhapur Agricultural Produce Market Committee ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO.3872 OF 2009 Prashant P. Patil ....Petitioner V/s. Kolhapur Agricultural Produce Market Committee ....Respondent Mr.M.S. Topkar with Mr.P.D. Dalvi for the Petitioner. Mr.S.S. Patwardhan for the Respondent. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATE : 25TH FEBRUARY, 2010. P.C. :- 1. The impugned orders warrant no interference. The orders reject the interim application for stay of the recruitment process to the post of clerks. The Petitioners are watchmen employed by the Respondent. 2. Relying upon a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Pandurang S. Dhabugade & Anr. v. A.P.M.C. & Ors. dated 17.12.2003 in Writ Petition No.4088 of 2003, it was contended that under Rule 46, the appointment of the employees on the posts falling vacant or 2 newly created should be made as far as possible by giving promotions to the employees already in service with the Market Committee. It is true that this judgment has not been considered in the impugned orders. 3. It is however a moot point in the present case whether watchmen are entitled to be promoted to the posts of clerks. The clerks fall within the category of “superior servants”, whereas watchmen fall within the category of “inferior servants” under The Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Rules, 1967. Promotions are also available within these categories. There is nothing to indicate that an employee in one category is per-se entitled to be promoted to any other category. 4. In the circumstances, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Needless to add that the observations are only prima-facie and will not bind the Industrial Court at the final hearing. 5. The statement made earlier on behalf of the Respondent shall continue upto and including 16.3.2010.