: 1 : wp.1728.1996 vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1728 OF 1996 Hanumanth Dnyanoba Nahane & anr. .. Petitioners V/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.S.P. Thorat for the Petitioners Mr.C.R. Sonawane for the Respondents CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE & SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, JJ. DATED: AUGUST 22, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER SHRI B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.): 1. The petitioners who came to be appointed as Assistant Engineers in the year 1989-90 by the CIDCO (Respondent No.2), seek to challenge the promotions granted to Respondent Nos.6 to 14 to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer. They claimed that at the first instance, they were entitled to be promoted under the remaining 25% quota which was for candidates for positive merit. On both these grounds, the claim of the petitioners is based solely on the basis of their post graduate qualifications in different disciplines of Engineering. The Petitioner No.1 is B.E. (Civil) and M.E. (Civil) whereas the Petitioner No.2 is B.Tech (Civil) and M.Tech. (Structure). The petitioners claimed : 2 : wp.1728.1996 that Respondent Nos.6 to 14 are Diploma holders or graduates and they could not have been promoted superseding the claim of the petitioners who hold a post graduate degree in Engineering. 2. Respondent No.5 has filed affidavit in reply and has submitted that it has framed its Recruitment, Seniority and Promotion Rules 1977. The post of Assistant Engineer is the feeder post for the post of Assistant Executive Engineer. The 75% quota for appointment of the post of Assistant Executive Engineer is by way of internal promotion based on seniority cum merit and Respondent Nos.6 to 14 were at serial Nos.2, 3, 9, 14, 15, 16, 17, 26 and 27 in the seniority list whereas the petitioner No.1 was at serial No.198 and the petitioner No.2 was at serial No.151 in the seniority list of Assistant Engineers. Both the Petitioners were not in the zone of consideration and, therefore, their case could not be considered for promotion in the 75% quota. 3. So far as the 25% quota is concerned, reference has been made to the Resolution No.5565 dated 31.1.1992. This 25% quota is available to the candidates with positive merit. The petitioners contend that only because they have a post graduate degree in Engineering they ought to be treated as the candidates with positive merit. These : 3 : wp.1728.1996 submissions cannot be accepted. There may be Diploma holders or Degree holders who may have more experience and better service record than the petitioners. It has been pointed out by CIDCO in its affidavit in reply that there are more Assistant Engineers with post graduate qualifications and senior to the petitioners. Thus, on any count, the petitioners could not have put their claim for promotion either under the 75% quota or the 25% quota at the relevant time. In fact, both of them had put in about 2 or 3 years service, when they filed this petition or when the resolution dated 31.1.1990 was passed. On 31.8.2010, we have noted in our order that the learned Counsel for the petitioners had sought time to withdraw the petition as it had become infructuous. During the pendency of this petition the petitioners were perhaps promoted to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer and further higher posts in due course. 4. In any way, there is no case made out to quash and set aside the promotions granted to Respondent Nos.6 to 14 to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer. The petition is therefore dismissed but without any order as costs. (SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J.) (B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.)