: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. 1002 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO. 1002 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO. 1002 OF 2009 Sattyappa Tammana Kamble ..Petitioner versus Secretary, Deccan Education Society & Anr. ..Respondents Mr. Kuldeep S. Patil 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 dismissal of his complaint by the Industrial Court under Item Nos.9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act. 3. As a Scheduled Caste category candidate, the petitioner is working as a Lab Assistant in Class III category. The petitioner claimed that the respondents have wrongfully withheld his promotion in the year 1999 to the post of the Head Clerk in the same class. According to the petitioner he was entitled for the said promotion as per the roster but he was superseded and one Pardhi was promoted in the year 1998. According to him, another :2: opportunity for promotion in the year 2002 was also denied to him. The Tribunal has hold after going through the evidence that the petitioner is indeed Class III and not Class IV employee as claimed by the respondents. The Tribunal however held that it was not possible to accept the petitioner’s prayer that he was entitled to promotion as per the roster for many years since the petitioner did not produce roster at all. Apparently, the petitioner did not even serve a notice to produce the roster upon the respondents. 4. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the finding of the Tribunal is vitiated by any error of law in the absence of evidence. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the judgment of the Industrial Court is liable to be construed as a charter to the respondents to ignore the roster. This is not a case. The Industrial Court has held that it is not merely possible to hold that the petitioner was denied promotion according to the roster. Because the roster was not produced that cannot be construed to mean that the respondents are entitled to ignore the roster for following future promotion wherever it is applicable. The petition is dismissed. :3: (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.)