:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1032 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO. 1032 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO. 1032 OF 2009 Sadashiv Shankar Sali ..Petitioner versus The Addl. Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. S. K. Shinde i /b. Mr. Sagar Kasar for the Petitioner. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. DATE : 9TH FEBRUARY, 2009 DATE : 9TH FEBRUARY, 2009 DATE : 9TH FEBRUARY, 2009 P.C. P.C. P.C. . Heard. 2. The petitioner has challenged the Order of the Additional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik, rejecting his appeal. 3. The petitioner has filed appeal against the order of the promotion of the respondent No.4 passed by the Zilla Parishad Nashik. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Additional Commissioner committed an error of law in dismissing the petitioner’s appeal. According to the learned :2: counsel, the Additional Commissioner ought to have seen that no adverse remarks were communicated to the petitioner even though that was the reason why he was denied promotion. A perusal of the Order shows that this is not correct. The petitioner was found to have received the remark "Ordinary" which has been construed by the Additional Commissioner as not being an adverse remark and therefore not necessary to communicate. The Additional Commissioner has further seen that the remarks received by the petitioner were relatively inferior to those received by the respondent No.4. It is obvious that the promotions have to be made on the relative merit cum seniority of the candidates. However, this by itself does not mean that the remarks received by a candidate who is not promoted should be continued as adverse. There is no merit in the petition, which is hereby dismissed. (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.)