Mgn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION NO.43 OF 2007 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2339 OF 2006 S.A. Wankhede & Ors. ..Petitioners Vs. The learned Chief Judge of Court of Small Causes, Bombay & Ors. ....Respondent Mr..Santosh Narwade i/b. M.P. Vashi & Associates for the petitioners. Mr. S.S. Patil, Registrar (Legal) present. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. DATED : 24TH JULY, 2009 P.C. Heard learned Counsel for the Review Petitioners. The sole grievance of the petitioners is that as the examinations were not held in time they could not have been denied the opportunity of being considered for promotion. 2. Recruitment is by promotion. When vacancy exists, eligible candidates who are available when the vacancies arise will have to be considered. The fact that the examinations were not held in time cannot result in denying to the eligible candidate the benefit of being considered. Even if the examinations are held those who pass the examination subsequently cannot claim for consideration to vacancies for the year when they were not eligible. The issue of seniority in the relevant cadre is immaterial as only those in the seniority who are eligible could have been considered for the interview. Para.580 of the Civil Manuel clearly lays down that the vacancies have to be filled year-wise. 2. Learned Counsel relies on the judgment in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Jagannath Achyut Karandikar, AIR 1989 S.C. 1133. In our opinion, that judgment is totally inapplicable to the facts of the present case. Hence there is no merit in the Review Petition. Review petition is rejected. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) (F.I. REBELLO, J.)