1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5409 OF 2007 Jagdish s/o. Madhukarrao Gabhane. .. petitioners Versus Lokshahir Annabhau Sathe Vikas Mahamandal Ltd., Mumbai, through its Managing Director and another. .. Respondent. --- Mr. S.R. Barlinge,, Advocate for petitioner. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & N.D.DESHPANDE,JJ. DATE : 16TH SEPTEMBER,2009. ORAL ORDER :- 1] By way of present petition, the petitioner seeks a writ,order or direction, directing the respondent No.1 to issue orders for reinstating the petitioner on the post of Regional Manager w.e.f. 27/1/2005. 2 2] It is the case of the petitioner that the Selection Committee in its meeting dated 20th November, 2004, had resolved to promote the petitioner to the post of Regional Manager. Accordingly, vide order dated 4th January, 2005, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Regional Manager. However, the said order was recalled vide the impugned order on the ground that the post on which the petitioner was promoted, was not sanctioned. 3] It is submitted that the other persons, who were similarly circumstanced, namely, Shri Ramesh Janardan Meshram, Shri Shravan Kisan Bawne, Shri Avinash Prabhakar Mandke and Shri Anil Radhoba Mhaske, who were promoted alongwith the petitioner and whose promotion orders were recalled, have been restored to the promotional post and as such, discriminatory treatment is being meted out to the petitioner. 4] It is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 that initially, all the aforesaid 4 persons were promoted as Regional Manager (Recovery) alongwith the petitioner. However, since it was noticed that the post of Regional Manager (Recovery ) was not sanctioned, vide the order dated 27/1/2005, the promotion issued to all the 4 persons was recalled. It is further submitted that, immediately thereafter, on 29/1/2005, the aforesaid 4 persons were promoted to the regular post of Regional Manager, which were sanctioned, on the basis of their seniority. 5] It is not the case of the petitioner that any of the persons who is junior to him has been promoted on the post of Regional Manager, denying 3 his legitimate claim. It is also not in dispute that the aforesaid 4 persons, who have been promoted vide order dated 29/1/2005 are senior to the petitioner in the order of seniority. 6] In that view of the matter, no case is made out for interference in the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the writ petition is summarily rejected. [N.D. DESHPANDE, J.] [B.R. GAVAI,J.] Grt/-