1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1900 OF 2001 Damodar Govind Patil ...Petitioner v/s Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and others ...Respondents Mr Sushil Mahadeshwar for Petitioner. Mr S.S. Pakle with Ms M.S. Modle for Respondents. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH AND R.G. KETKAR JJ. DATE : 5TH OCTOBER 2009. 2 P.C. :- 1] The petitioner, who was in the service of respondent  Corporation, has filed this petition seeking a direction to the Corporation for deemed date of promotion in the post of Inspector and for payment accordingly. By the impugned order, in view of the Circular issued by the Corporation, the petitioner has been given deemed date of promotion in the post of Deputy Head Teacher and payment has also been made to him. So far as his claim for promotion to the post of Inspector is concerned, in the order impugned in the petition, it is stated that the Corporation does not have policy to reserve the post of Inspector (Schools) for any backward class candidates. The learned counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that this statement appearing in the impugned order is not right because the Corporation has by its resolution dated 24 th November 1997 cancelled the resolution dated 19 th July 1982 and that has decided that reservation in promotion for backward class candidates should be 3 applied upto the post equivalent to the post of Under Secretary in the State Government. The learned counsel further submitted that even assuming that there is no reservation to be made for candidates belonging to backward class, then also as per the impugned order, the last candidate above the petitioner - Ms Swati V. Karnik who was promoted to the post of Inspector has retired in the year 2001 and therefore the petitioner should have been promoted in the said vacancy. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for respondents. It does appear from the record that the resolution dated 19 th July 1982 on which reliance is placed in the order impugned in the petition for saying that there is no reservation in the post of Inspector (School), has been cancelled by the Corporation by its resolution dated 24 th November 1997, however, it is also common ground that though the Corporation is considering the petitioner s case, the Corporation has not taken any final decision as to which post in the Corporation is equivalent to the post of Under Secretary to the State Government. Without deciding 4 the equivalence, in our opinion, the resolution dated 24 th November 1997 cannot be said to have become effective and therefore, substantially the stand taken in the impugned order that so far as the post of Inspector (Schools) is concerned, there is no policy to make reservation for the candidates belonging to backward class appears to be correct. So far as the submission that the petitioner should have been promoted in the vacancy caused due to retirement of Ms Swati V. Karnik is concerned, she retired from the post of Administrative Officer. According to the averments in the petition, Mr R.V. Paranjpe was holding the post of Superintendent, he retired on 2 nd November 2001. The petitioner, however, has not stated anywhere whether vacancy caused due to retirement of Ms Karnik in the post of Administrative Officer or in the post of Superintendent due to retirement of Mr R.V. Paranjpe is filled in. The learned counsel appearing for petitioner himself stated that she was holding the post of Administrative Officer. In our opinion, in this situation, there is no question of giving any 5 deemed date of promotion to the petitioner in the post of Inspector and also making payment to him. Taking overall view of the matter therefore, in our opinion, there is no substance in the petition, it fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. Parties to act on the copy of this order duly authenticated by the Associate / Private Secretary of this Court. Certified copy expedited. ( JUSTICE D.K. DESHMUKH ) ( JUSTICE R.G. KETKAR )