1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1362 OF 2009 Sayyad Mubin Sayyad Sattar PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and others RESPONDENTS Mr.P.S.Dighe, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.S.V.Kurundkar, learned AGP for respondent no.1 Mr.N.L.Jadhav, learned counsel for respondent no.2 (CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.) DATE : 16/09/2009 PER COURT : 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of The Constitution of India by which the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ directing respondent no.2 to promote the petitioner to Class-3 category by mentioning clause 4 of the Government Resolution dated 23/08/1996 in the appointment order. 2. It appears that the Government had issued a resolution dated 23/08/1996 stating therein that in case of 6 persons who were holding the requisite qualification of a Class-3 posts on the date of their appointment, but on account of non availability of Class-3 2 posts, have been posted in Class-4 post, would be entitled to be promoted to Class-3 post as and when a vacancy arises. The petitioner undisputedly came to be appointed on compassionate ground by the appointment order dated 06/12/2004 on a Class-4 post. The petitioner on the date of his appointment was holding a qualification of H.Sc. The petitioner by this petition contends that the petitioner holds the requisite qualification of Class-3 post, and therefore is entitled to be promoted to Class-3 post and seeks the direction of this Court for incorporating condition no.4 of Government Resolution dated 23/08/1996. 3. On notice of this petition being issued to the respondents, the respondents have filed their affidavit in reply. In the affidavit in reply, it is the contention of the respondents that the petitioner was not holding the requisite qualification of Class-C post i.e. S.Sc. + Typing (Marathi and English). The petitioner has acquired the qualification of Typing subsequent to his appointment and therefore on the date of his appointment, the petitioner was qualified for being appointed to a Class-4 post. 4. The petitioner undisputedly was not holding the requisite qualification prescribed for appointment to a Class-3 post which was S.Sc. + Typing. The petitioner had acquired the qualification of H.Sc. In the light of that therefore the petitioner came to be appointed to a Class-4 post without mentioning the fact in his appointment order that he would be entitled to be appointed to a Class-3 post in the 3 event of a vacancy. Since the petitioner was not holding the requisite qualification on the date of his appointment, the petitioner can not pray for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to promote/appoint the petitioner to a Class-3 post. The petitioner has only annexed at Exh.G collectively a list of the persons in the wait list and the petitioner and learned counsel for the petitioner contends before us that the persons in the wait list do not holding the requisite qualification of a Class-3 post. Assuming that certain persons not holding requisite qualification of a Class-3 post have been promoted/appointed, that by itself would not give any legally enforceable right to the petitioner to seek his promotion/ appointment. An erroneous order can not have any value as a precedent and can not be enforced in perpetuity. 5. After giving our anxious consideration to the rival submissions, according to us there is no merit in the petition and the petition fails, and is therefore summarily dismissed with no order as to costs. If the petitioner is eligible, the petitioner may if so advised apply to Class-3 post in the event of the posts being advertised. In the event the petitioner does apply, the application of the petitioner to be considered on its own merits. Petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) (P.V.HARDAS, J.) khs/SEP 2009/wp1362-09