1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5221 OF 2008 Madhav S/o Narsingrao Darade .. .. Petitioner Versus 01. The State of Maharashtra and others .. .. Respondents Shri P. G. Gunale, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri V. H. Dighe, A.G.P. for the Respondent No. 1. Mrs. S. D. Tambat (Dhumal), Advocate for the Respondents No. 2 and 3. CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL, AND N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 19TH APRIL, 2010. ORAL ORDER [Per NARESH H. PATIL, J. ] : . Heard. 02. The petitioner claims appointment on promotion as 2 Director (Bee Keeping), as he satisfies the eligibility conditions. 03. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner places reliance on reported judgment (1983) 3 S.C.C. 601. It was contended that earlier in the year 1995 one Mr. Vasant Bhimrao Patil was appointed as Director, though he was a departmental candidate. According to the counsel, Mr. Patil was appointed directly by adopting selection method. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that respondents No. 2 and 3 have discretion which can be exercised in favour of the petitioner and appointment order promoting him can be issued. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the criteria of selecting Director (Hand Made Paper) and Director (Bee Keeping) is different under the Rules. 04. The respondent No. 2 and 3 filed affidavit in reply. In substance the deponent contends that appointment of Mr. Patil was made in the year 1977 as Chemist, thereafter he was promoted to the post of research officer and on 20.01.1985, he was promoted on the post of Director (Bee Keeping). The post of Director (Bee Keeping) is required to be filled in by nomination/selection by giving paper publication and as per the 3 procedure and not by promotion according to deponent. 05. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that as Mr. Patil was promoted as departmental candidate, this time the authorities decided to fill in post by selection/nomination. The counsel submits that the petitioner has no right to the promotional post under the Rules. The petitioner had also participated in the said process and his case will be considered on its own merits. 06. Considering the facts of the case and the reply filed by the respondents, we do not find any error in the view adopted by the respondents No. 2 and 3. The petitioner does not have vested right to claim the promotional post. The explanation of the concern department in respect of filling in the post this time by nomination/selection is also in accordance with the Rules, which permit the department either to fill the post by way of nomination/selection or promotion. 07. In the light of explanation as above, no interference is called for. The writ petition is dismissed. Needless to mention 4 here that dismissal of this writ petition shall not adversely affect the petitioner's application which he had filed for seeking appointment. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] bsb/Mar.10