RP.1142-10 - 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION (St.) No. 1142 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION No. 4705 OF 2008 Vasant Bajrang Pise ...Petitioner Vs. The Superintendent Engineer, MSEB Solapur & Ors. ...Respondents *** Mr. Sarang Aradhye, for the Petitioner. Ms. A. R. S Baxi, for Respondent No.1. Mr. S. D. Rayrikar, AGP for Respondent No.4. *** CORAM: V. M. KANADE J. DATE : AUGUST 23, 2010 P.C. 1. By this petition, the petitioner is challenging an order passed by this Court whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed and the order passed by the Industrial Court in Complaint (ULP) No. 20 of 2005 was confirmed. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was granted the benefits of promotion on 1-4-1995. However, RP.1142-10 - 2 - he was not considered for promotion in 1996. It is submitted that in 1995 when benefits of promotion were granted, at that time also the Selection Committee had taken into consideration the confidential reports for three years from 1992 and yet had given the said benefits. 3. It was submitted that it was not open for the Selection Committee, after having given the benefits of promotion to the petitioner in the year 1995, to refuse to give the promotion on the basis of the very same confidential reports. It is submitted that therefore, there is a clear error of law apparent on the face of record. It is not possible to accept this submission, firstly because there is a difference between granting the pecuniary benefits and granting the actual promotion. After having completed particulars years of service an employee may be entitled to get the benefits of the promotion. However, for getting promotion, criteria of promotion is seniority-cum-merits. The Selection Committee is entitled to look into the confidential reports of the employee. In the present case, admittedly the confidential reports of the petitioner for three years prior to 1996 were ‘average’ and he did not get the minimum 9 marks, which was required for being considered for promotion. In this view of the matter, there is no merit in the submission made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. No case is made RP.1142-10 - 3 - out for review of the impugned order. Hence, the review petition is dismissed. [ V. M. KANADE J.]