1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7208 OF 1998 Mallikarjun Irrappa Dharne. ... ... Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra. ... ... Respondent. Mr. Prashant Bhavake i/by Mr. N. V. Bandiwadekar for the Petitioner. Mr. C. R. Sonawane, AGP for the Respondent. CORAM : D. D. SINHA and A. A. SAYED, JJ. DATED :15TH FEBRUARY, 2010. P. C.: Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the Respondent State. 2. This writ petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 17th July, 1998 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal whereby the Original Application filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed. 3. The grievance of the petitioner before the Tribunal was in respect of non­consideration of his claim to the post of Executive Engineer by the respondent. It was the case of the petitioner that he belonged to Koshti community. The petitioner was selected as Assistant Engineer, Grade­I, 2 through the Public Service Commission in the year 1985 from the open category. Vide Government Resolution dated 7th December, 1994 issued by the Social Welfare Department certain communities were declared as special backward classes for the purposes of backward class scholarships. These communities were also recognised as special backward classes for certain service related concessions. It appears that neither the Government Resolution dated 7th December, 1994 nor the subsequent Government Resolutions were placed on record of the Tribunal by the petitioner. The State Government vide decision dated 2nd January, 1995 stayed the said concession, however, withdrew the same subsequently with effect from 15th June, 1995. It was the case of the petitioner before the Tribunal that on 29th March, 1997 the State Government published a decision prescribing revised 100 point roster for direct recruitment and 50 point roster for promotion. The petitioner was seeking direction that he should be promoted to the post of Executive Engineer with effect from 5th December, 1995 on the ground that certain persons belonging to Scheduled Caste, who were junior to the petitioner, were promoted to the post of Executive Engineer. 4. The Tribunal in para 3 of the judgment has observed thus : “3. After hearing both sides we find that no cause of action 3 whatsoever has been made out by the petitioner. The resolution of 5.12.1995 on which the petitioner has placed reliance in his original application is not on record. The decision of 29.3.1997 annexed at Exh.”A” makes it clear that the promotion made prior to that date are not to be disturbed. The petitioner has also failed to show that any person belonging to the special backward classes who is junior to him has been promoted ahead of him. In the absence of any specific cause of action to indicate how the petitioner is aggrieved, we find no substance in the application.” 5. We have considered the contentions canvased by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. The observations made by the Tribunal in para 3 of the Judgment clearly demonstrates that the petitioner failed to place on record the relevant documents on the basis of which the claim for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer was placed by the petitioner. Similarly, the petitioner also failed to demonstrate before the Tribunal that who were the candidate belonging to special backward classes and who were junior to the petitioner were promoted to the post of Executive Engineer ignoring the claim of the petitioner for that post. It is in these circumstances the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal, in our view, appears to be just and 4 proper. 6. The writ petition suffers from lack of merits and is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/­ (D. D. SINHA, J.) Sd/­ (A. A. SAYED, J.)