(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. Letters Patent Appeal No. 164 of 2004 Narhari s/o. Kerba Kakde, Age : 40 years, Occupation : Service, R/o. Sarvodayanagar, Sailu, Taluka : Sailu, District : Parbhani. .. Appellant. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra. 2. Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Sailu, Taluka : Sailu, Dist. Parbhani, Through its Chairman. 3. District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Parbhani, Dist. Parbhani. 4. Bhausaheb s/o. Shamrao Shelke, Age : 48 years, Occupation : Service, R/o. Babasaheb Road, Near New High School, Taluka : Sailu, District : Parbhani. 5. Secretary, A.P.M.C., Sailu, Dist. Parbhani. .. Respondents. .......................... (2) Mr. A.C. Bhagure, Advocate, for the appellant (Absent). Mr. S.K. Kadam, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 and 3. Mr. A.S. Deshmukh, Advocate, for respondent nos.2 and 5. Mr. G.V. Patil, Advocate, holding for Mr. V.D. Salunke, Advocate, for respondent no.4. .......................... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 24TH JULY 2009. COURT'S ORDER (Per B.R. Gavai, J.) : 1. From the perusal of the record, it is clear that several adjournments were sought on behalf of the present appellant for woking out the present appeal. On 5th October 2007 itself, last chance was granted to the appellant to work out the matter. It appears that thereafter matter has been adjourned on several dates. Even on 8th July 2009, none appeared for the appellant and, therefore, matter was adjourned to 22nd July 2009. On 22nd July 2009, none appeared for the appellant and, therefore, matter was adjourned for today. Today also, none appears for the appellant. 2. In this factual background, we could have very well (3) dismissed the appeal in default. However, instead of dismissing the appeal in default, we find it appropriate to consider the merits of the matter. 3. The present appeal challenges the order dated 29th April 2004, passed by the learned Single Judge of this court, in Writ Petition No. 1745/2004. 4. This court, while considering the prayers made in the Writ Petition filed by the respondent no.4 herein, has issued rule and found that the criminal case was pending against the said respondent and, as such, it was not proper on the part of the respondent no.2 herein, to promote the appellant to the post of Inspector. It has further been found that the Sessions Case was pending against the appellant wherein serious allegations of misappropriation of amount was made. Considering these aspects of the matter, the learned Single Judge had directed the respondent no.2 herein, to withdraw the promotion order issued in favour of the appellant. 5. We do not find that any error, apparent on the face of record, has been committed by the learned Single Judge while passing the impugned order. 6. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. ( N.D. DESHPANDE ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE bgp/lpa164