1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO. 1 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO. 1 OF 2009 Milind S. Kulkarni & Ors. .. Petitioners. vs. The Assessor & Collector Municipal Corporaton of Greater Mumbai & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr. R.S. Apte, Sr. Advocate i/by Vaibhav P. Patankar for Petitioners. Ms. S.M. Mondle for Respondent/BMC. CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & K.K K.K K.K. TATED, JJ. TATED, JJ. TATED, JJ. DATE: 27TH JANUARY, 2009. DATE: 27TH JANUARY, 2009. DATE: 27TH JANUARY, 2009. P.C. . The petitioners have approached this Court seeking a direction against respondent nos. 1 and 5 to consider and decide all objections submitted by the persons similarly placed to the provisional seniority list dated 24.07.2008 by giving hearing and by passing a reasoned order. It is further prayed that if the order goes adverse to the petitioners then the same cannot be operated and implemented for a period of four 2 weeks from the date of communication of such order to the petitioners. 2. The petitioners are employees of respondent no. 6 MCGM and are holding the posts of Ward Inspectors/Octroi Inspectors in respondent no. 1 Department. It is the case of the petitioners that respondent nos. 1 to 5 are the office bearers of respondent no. 6 Municipal Corporation and that they have published a provisional seniority list which is not in accordance with the rules and regulations governing the service conditions of the petitioners and, therefore, the petitioners have made various representations to the respondents raising objections to the provisional seniority list dated 24.7.2008. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation states that a decision in the matter has been taken and copies of the same have been conveyed to the petitioners after obtaining their acknowledgements on 13.1.2009. 4. The learned counsel for the respondents further states that promotions in accordance with the seniority list are under process. In view of the fact that there are vacancies in the post of Dy. Superintendent / Octroi Assistant of about 130 in number, any further delay in the matter would adversely affect the functioning of the Octroi Department of the MCGM. 3 5. Considering that the petitioner’s representations/ objections to the provisional seniority list have already been decided by the respondent MCGM, the relief sought in the petition has become infructuous. 6. The learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that in order to enable the petitioners to challenge the decision, the respondent corporation may be directed not to post persons by giving promotions in accordance with the seniority list finalised by the respondents. In our opinion, granting such a relief will cause injustice to persons who are found eligible for being promoted particularly when they are not party respondents to this petition. Needless to say that if the petitioners challenge the seniority list and the promotions of candidates by filing a substantive writ petition, the seniority list and the promotions would be subject to orders that may be passed by this Court. With this observation, we dispose of the petition as infructuous. (J.N. Patel, J.) (J.N. Patel, J.) (J.N. Patel, J.) (K.K. Tated, J.) (K.K. Tated, J.) (K.K. Tated, J.) 4