1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Misc. Civil Application (Review) No.389 of 2006 in W.P.No.4934/2004 (D) (Sudhakar s/o. Shankar Mahajan .vs. State and Ors.) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions : Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= CORAM : D.D.SINHA AND SMT.VASANTI A. NAIK, JJ. DATE : JULY 25, 2008. Heard Mr.A.S.Kilor, Adv. for Review Petitioner, Mr.D.B.Yengal, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr.Mokkadum, Adv. for Respondent No.3. Considered the contentions canvassed by the respective parties. Perused the impugned order. Perusal of the impugned order shows that promotion to the post of Agriculture Officer was not denied to the petitioner only on the ground of conviction in criminal trial but also on the ground that the review petitioner was not found fit for promotion on the basis of assessment 2 done by the Assessing Officer for the concerned year. The Assistant Government Pleader states that these remarks were also orally communicated to the petitioner. It is nodoubt true that, the petitioner, at a latter point of time, is acquitted by the Apex Court; however, that by itself, does not make him eligible ipso facto to claim promotion. Hence, no case is made out for showing indulgence. Hence, the review petition is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE ssj