1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO.3859/2010. Suhas Rangraoji More -VERSUS- The State of Maharashtra and others. _______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. ______________________________________________________________________________ CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI & A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATED : SEPTEMBER 27, 2011. Heard Shri P.N. Shende, learned Counsel for petitioner, Shri Kale, learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 and 3 and Shri C.S. Kaptan, learned Counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 4. Shri Shende, learned counsel initially sought adjournment pointing out that he has filed vakalatnama only recently. However, as the matter is of the year 2010 we have rejected his request. Shri Shende, learned counsel on merits has pointed out that the petitioner has joined the services 2 on 05.04.1995 and while in service has obtained graduate qualification (B.Ed.) in 2001 and thereafter M.A. (History) in 2003 and M.A.(Marathi) in 2006. He also obtained B.P.Ed. qualification (Vacation) in Summer 2004, he therefore, states that against the vacancy of Physical Education Teacher, the petitioner is entitle to be considered and is attempting to point out supercession. He further points out that persons who have also obtained that training qualification are being treated as senior to petitioner by ignoring that they have joined later in point of time. Shri Kaptan, learned counsel has invited attention to the seniority list prepared by respondent nos. 2 and 4 in this respect. He states that the date of obtaining graduate qualification and then training qualification are looked into and accordingly name of petitioner finds place at Sr.No.7. In accordance with his standing in that seniority, his entitlement will be considered against available vacancies. Shri Kale, learned A.G.P. appearing for respondent nos. 1 and 3 is supporting the arguments of Shri Kaptan, learned Counsel. 3 After hearing respective counsel, we find that the persons above petitioner in the seniority list have obtained their degree before him and also training qualification before petitioner. The respondent employer is ready and willing to consider the entitlement of petitioner as per his standing in the said list. In view of this, the petitioner has to wait for his turn to come. In this situation, as presently we do not find any injustice being caused to the petitioner, we dispose of the same. However, petitioner is at liberty to come again, if he is aggrieved by any future act of respondents. Petition is disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE Rgd