1 WP2192.11 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2192 OF 2011 Ms.Shobha Rao ... Petitioner v/s Maharashtra Association for the Cultivation of Science & ors. ... Respondents Mr.Hitesh P. Vyas for the petitioner. Mr.Nitin P. Deshpande for Resp. Nos.1, 2 and 4. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE & SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, JJ. DATED: 25TH NOVEMBER, 2011 P.C.: 1. Heard Mr.Vyas, the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner claims that she is aggrieved by the circular dated 1.7.2010 issued by the Chairman of respondent No.1 Institute directing respondent No.4 to act as officer in-charge from 1.7.2010 to 30.9.2010 and as officiating Director from 1.10.2010. It is the case of the petitioner that she is the senior-most scientist in the 2 WP2192.11 respondent No.2 institute and she was eligible for the appointment as the Director of the said institute as per the bye-laws. She, therefore, prays for directions to appoint her as regular Director of respondent No.2 and also to withdraw the impugned circular dated 1.7.2010. 3. Admittedly, the petitioner retired on 28.2.2011 on attaining the age of superannuation and though this petition was filed on 20.10.2010, it came up before the Court for the first time on 25.3.2011 when the petitioner had already retired. There was no other scientist junior to the petitioner who was appointed as Director of respondent No.2 and respondent No.4 was only assigned the functions of official Director for a limited period. Even if the petitioner was called upon to assign the functions of official Director of respondent No.2 Institute in place of respondent No.4 till the regular Director was appointed, she would not be entitled for any additional monetary benefits of regular Director. Hence, in our view, the petition has become infructuous by now. 4. The petition is disposed off as infructuous. (SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE, J.) 3 WP2192.11 4 WP2192.11