(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 3566 OF 1994 Chandrakant s/o. Laxmanrao Tandale, Age : 58 years, Occupation : Service, Resident of Udgir, Taluka : Udgir, District : Latur. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra. 2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Latur, Taluka and District : Latur. 3. S.A. Khandare, Age : Major, Occupation : Service, as Agricultural Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Ahmedpur, Taluka : Ahmedpur, District : Latur. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. G.O. Wattamwar, Advocate, holding for Mr. S.G. Rudrawar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. K.B. Chaudhary, Additional Government Pleader, for respondent no.1. (2) Mr. V.D. Hon, Advocate, for respondent no.2. Mr. K.S. Bhore, Advocate, for respondent no.3. ........................ CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 17TH JUNE 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S.V. Gangapurwala, J.) : 1. By the present petition, the petitioner challenges the order of promotion issued in favour of the respondent no.3, dated 28-2-1994, by virtue of which the respondent no.3 is promoted as an Agricultural Officer. 2. The case of the petitioner is that initially he was appointed as Gram-Sevak in the year 1957. Thereafter, he was promoted as an Extension Officer in the year 1979 and confirmed in the year 1986. On or about 17-1-1991, seniority list came to be published of Extension Officers. In the said seniority list, the petitioner was at serial no.22 and respondent no.3 was shown at serial no.26. Again the seniority list was published on 10-2-1994. In the said seniority list also, the petitioner was shown at serial no.22 and respondent no.3 was (3) shown at serial no.26. 3. It is the case of the petitioner, that the respondent no. 2 has favoured respondent no.3 and in spite of the fact that the petitioner was senior, has promoted respondent no.3 as an Agricultural Officer. According to the petitioner, this act of the respondent no.2, in promoting respondent no.3, as against the claim of the petitioner, is arbitrary and illegal. 4. The respondent no.2, in the affidavit in reply, has clarified that the Confidential Report of the respondent no.3 was examined as against the Confidential Report of the petitioner. The Confidential Report of the petitioner was found to be not satisfactory. The respondent no.2 has relied on the Government Resolution dated 18th May 1983 wherein it is laid down that the criteria would be seniority-cum-merit and as per the said criteria, the person, who had an excellent Confidential Report, can jump over six places. In this view of the matter, no illegality has been committed by the respondent no.2. 5. Perusal of the said Government Resolution shows that the merit was also one of the criteria while taking into account the promotions to be granted. In view of the fact that the Confidential Report of the respondent no.3 was excellent, he was entitled to be promoted over the persons, who were up to (4) six serial numbers, senior to him. As such, no illegality is found to have been committed by the respondent no.2. 6. There is another facet of the matter. The petitioner had also challenged the said promotion of the respondent no.3 before the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad, who by his judgment dated 20th October 1994, has dismissed the said appeal and confirmed the order of promotion. The said order is also not challenged. 7. In view of the aforesaid premise, there is no merit in the petition. As such, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp3566