1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7379 OF 2008 Smt. Aasha Dalpat Padmakar .. Petitioner Versus 1. The Chief Executive Officer, Z. P. Dhule and others .. Respondents Shri Pravin Mandalik, Senior Counsel instructed by Shri Amol Gandhi, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri. N. B. Patil, A. G. P. for the Respondent No. 3. CORAM : B. R. GAVAI & N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 22nd July, 2009. ORAL ORDER [ Per B. R. Gavai, J.] : 1. By way of present petition petitioner challenges order dated 07th January, 2006, vide which the appeal filed by the present petitioner was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner. The petitioner had filed the aforesaid appeal challenging order passed by the selection committee of the Zilla Parishad vide which the 2 respondent No. 2 was promoted to the post of Superintendent. 2. Shri Mandalik, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as clerk in the year 1982 and thereafter she was promoted as Senior Clerk in the year 1999. Learned senior counsel submits that after a period of 12 years petitioner is entitled to be automatically considered in higher scale and as such seniority would start from completion of 12 years of her officiation in the lower post. He further submits that, while promoting, the committee has not taken into consideration that certain departmental inquiries were pending against the person who had been promoted. 3. The promotion has been done by the selection committee of Zilla Parishad consisting of four senior officers. The promotion is an official act done. It is presumed to be done in an appropriate manner. The petitioner has not attributed any malafides to any of the member of committee. In that view of the matter, we do not find substance in the contention of the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner. Even on merits it can be seen that the respondent No. 2 who has been promoted from VJNT category was directly appointed as senior assistant on 23rd March, 1998, whereas, the petitioner has been promoted as senior assistant on 17th November, 1999. This clearly shows that respondent No. 2 was senior to the petitioner in the cadre of senior assistant from which promotional posts of Superintendent was to be filled. In that view of the matter, we do not find infirmity with the order 3 passed by the Additional Commissioner. Hence petition rejected. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] [ B. R. GAVAI, J.] bsb/July 09