(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 3228 OF 1997 Gopal Atmaram Sapkar, Age : 32 years, Occupation : Government Servant, R/o. Northern Branch, Shrirampur, Taluka : Shrirampur, District : Ahmednagar. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. Chief Engineer and Joint Secretary, Planning Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32. 3. The Executive Engineer, Ahmednagar Irrigation Department, Fakirwada, Nagar-Aurangabad Road, Ahmednagar. 4. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar. 5. The Divisional Commissioner, Nasik Division, Nasik. 6. The Collector, Ahmednagar, District : Ahmednagar. .. Respondents. ....................... (2) Mr. P.B. Shirsath, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. K.B. Chaudhary, Additional Government Pleader, for respondent nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6. Mr. S.T. Shelke, Advocate, for respondent no.4. ........................ CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 30TH JULY 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S.V. Gangapurwala, J.) : 1. The petitioner was initially appointed as Muster Assistant. Thereafter, as per the policy framed by the respondent, the petitioner was absorbed as a Class-IV employee in the establishment of respondent no.4. The petitioner claims that in view of the amendment to the policy, vide Government Resolutions dated 14-10-1996 and 21-4-1999, the petitioner is required to be absorbed in Class-III post commensurate with the educational qualification and seniority. 2. According to the petitioner, the persons, who were junior to him in the seniority, have been promoted or either absorbed in Class-III post, prior to him. The petitioner is promoted to the Class-III post on 19-12-2003. According to the petitioner, one Shri B.N. Mhais and Shri A.R. Tilekar, who were (3) similarly placed like the petitioner, but were junior to him in the seniority, were appointed in Class-III post on 6-12-2003 i.e. prior to him. The petitioner claims that he should get the deemed date of promotion prior to that, on the count that the said persons were junior to the petitioner in the seniority list. 3. The aforesaid two persons are not parties to the present petition. No orders, which would adversely affect those persons, can be passed in their absence. Moreover, the establishment is different. 4. We have asked the learned Counsel for the petitioner, as to any person, on the establishment where the petitioner was working, who was junior to the petitioner, has been promoted prior in point of time. The petitioner could not point out any such circumstance. 5. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the petition. As such, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/3228wp