131wp27.11.odt 1 . IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 27 of 2011 (Nilkanth Sadashiv Bhokardankar .vs. 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 Coram: D. D. Sinha and A. P. Bhangale, JJ. Date : 13/01/2011. Heard Mr.S.M.Bhangde, Adv. for the petitioner and Mr.A.S.Fulzele, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent nos. 1 to 3. This petition is directed against the order dt. 26.11.2008 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur whereby the Original Application filed by the petitioner for grant of deemed date of promotion came to be rejected. Considered the contentions canvassed by the learned respective Counsel and perused the impugned order. The Tribunal in para 8 of the impugned order has observed thus : “ It is pertinent to note that in this O.A., the applicant is seeking declaration that he is entitled for deemed date of 131wp27.11.odt 2 . promotion from 1982 ignoring the report of the Reviewing Committee. Thus, by making such prayer, the applicant wants that the Tribunal should sit over the judgment and decision taken by the D.P.C. However, in this regard, it is to be noted that it is well settled that the Tribunal cannot sit over the judgment and decision regarding selection made by the D.P.C. unless the selection is assailed as being vitiated by malafides or as arbitrary. In this regard, if any authority is needed, it is to be found in Anil Katiyar vs. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 2656. The applicant has not alleged malafides or arbitrariness against the members of D.P.C. The said ruling is, therefore, squarely applicable to the prayer made by the applicant in this case and relying upon the said ruling, we find that the prayer made by the applicant in the O.A. cannot be granted.” There is no reason for us to have a different view than the one taken by the Tribunal, particularly because the decision of the concerned D.P.C. was not subject matter of challenge before the Tribunal and therefore, it was not possible for the Tribunal to assess 131wp27.11.odt 3 . suitability of the petitioner independently than that of the decision given by the concerned D.P.C. In the circumstances, no case is made out for showing indulgence. Hence, the petition is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE jais