1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICMTURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Writ Petition No. 4965 of 2008 Brijlal v. The State and ors ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's Orders. Mr S.P. Kshirsagar, Adv for petitioner. Mr S.J. Jichkar, AGP for respondents. Coram : D.D. Sinha and A.P. Bhangale, JJ Dated : 20th January 2009 1. Heard Mr S.P. Kshirsagar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr S.J. Jichkar, learned AGP for respondents. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 16th July 2008 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal whereby Original Application filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is challenging the order on the following grounds : (i). The petitioner was holding promotional post 2 purely on temporary basis and could not be replaced by another temporary person. (ii). The Tribunal has unnecessarily considered and applied ratio laid down by the Apex Court in State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi reported in AIR SCW 1991 when petitioner is not claiming regularisation. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. Learned Asst. Government Pleader has supported the impugned order. 3. Considered the rival contentions canvassed by both the parties and perused the impugned order. In paragraph 8 of its order, the Tribunal has observed thus : “8. We have given thoughtful consideration to the contentions canvassed by the learned Counsel for the parties. It is not disputed that the applicants were given purely temporary promotions in the cadre of Primary Education Extension Officers Grade-III. It is also not disputed that the said temporary promotion has been withdrawn on account of reversion of some of the Primary Teachers who were demoted from the post of head Master (Primary). The seniority list of the Primary Teachers was maintained and respondents 3,4 and 5 are stated to be the senior-most who were 3 considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee to be fit for promotion. Since the post of Education Extension Officer Grade-III was to be filled in from the cadre of Primary Teachers, there was nothing wrong in promoting the senior-most Primary Teachers on the post of Primary Education Extension Officer. The contention of the learned Counsel for the applicants that it was not permissible for the respondents to revert the applicants once they have been promoted on the posts of Education Extension Officer is devoid of any substance.” The above observations clearly demonstrate that the petitioner was holding the post purely on ad-hoc and temporary basis. However, in view of the direction issued by the High Court in Writ Petition No. 4852 of 2004, meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) was held who had verified the seniority lists, select lists etc. and found that the applicants who were promoted temporarily as Education Extension Officer were junior-most in the cadre of primary teacher and, therefore, they have been reverted to the post of primary teacher and those primary teachers who were senior, have been promoted in place of petitioner and others. It is in these circumstances, claim of the petitioner was rejected. In the instant case, the Tribunal even 4 without considering the ratio laid down in Umadevi's case independently, has recorded finding in paragraph 8 that the claim of petitioner is without any substance. In the circumstances, no case is made out for showing indulgence. Writ Petition dismissed. Judge. Judge. hsj