1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2124 OF 2009 Shankarrao Veerbhadra Thalpate and another. .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others. .. Respondents - Mr. Sachin Deshmukh, Advocate for the petitoiner Mr. Kale, Advocate holding for Mr. Sable,Advocate for respondent Nos. 7 and 8 Mr. S.D. Kaldate, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : 11TH JUNE, 2009. ORAL ORDER :- 1. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 28th July, 2008 passed by the Director of Marketing, Maharashtra State, Pune, thereby allowing the appeal filed by the respondent Nos. 7 to 9. 2 2. The erstwhile Kalamnuri A.P.,M.C. came to be bifurcated by notification dated 7th April, 1998. However, it appears that the actual bifurcation, for some reasons, could not take place till 6th May, 2008. It appears that the delay occurred due to pendency of certain petitions before this court and the orders passed therein. 3. Subsequently, on account of bifurcation, the District Deputy Registrar transferred some of the employee working in Kalamnuri A.P.M.C. to the establishment of Sirsam A.P.M.C. The respondent NOs. 7 to 9 challenged the said order before the Director of Marketing, Pune. The appeal was allowed. Being aggrieved thereby, the present petition has been filed. 4. Shri Deshmukh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that during 1998 to 2008, certain changes took place in the seniority and as such, the District Deputy Registrar has rightly done division of the employees as per seniority list of 2008. He submits that on account of superannuation of some persons, the seniority has changed as compared to 1998 and as such, the Director of Marketing has erred in interfering with the division done by the District Deputy Registrar. 5. Shri Kale, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 7 to 9 on the contrary submits that the Director of Marketing has rightly allowed the appeal and as such, no interference is warranted. 6. It is a matter of common sense that a person, if appointed in 1998 cannot become junior to a person who is 3 appointed between 1998 to 2008. In any event, though the bifurcation is notified in 1998, due to intervention of this court, it could not take effect till 2008. It is a settled principle of law that act of court shall prejudice none. In that view of the matter, no perversity could be found with the order passed by the Director of Marketing in directing division to be done as per seniority as on the date of the notification vide which there was bifurcation of Kalmanuri A.P.M.C. into Kalamnuri and Sirsam A.P.M.C.s. 7. The writ petition being devoid of merit is summarily dismissed. [B.R. GAVAI, J.] grt/