1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1230 OF 1998 Jayant C. Sahasrabudhe ...Petitioner v/s General Insurance Corporation of India and others ...Respondents Mr S.M. Dharap for Petitioner. Mr V.Y. Sanglikar for Respondents. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH AND R.G. KETKAR JJ. DATE : 7TH SEPTEMBER 2009. 2 P.C. :- 1] The petitioner, by this petition, makes a grievance about denial of promotion to him. The petitioner joined the service of the respondents in the post of Administrative Officer (Architecture) pursuant to the appointment order dated 12th June 1990. The petitioner was recruited in service pursuant to an advertisement dated 9th September 1990. In the advertisement, it was stated that the post of Administrative Officer (Architecture) is an ex-cadre post. The appointment of th petitioner as Administrative Officer (Arch.) was confirmed with effect from 3rd July 1991. The petitioner has admittedly been promoted to the post of Assistant Manager with effect from 14th July 2000. The grievance of the petitioner is that he should have been considered for promotion in the years 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998 and 1999. According to the respondents, the petitioner became, according to the promotion policy of the respondents, entitled to be considered for promotion in the year 1996. 3 Accordingly he was considered for promotion during the year 1996 alongwith other eligible candidates but the Promotion Committee did not find him fit for promotion during the year 1996. The same thing happened in the years 1997, 1998 and 1999. He was again considered in the year 2000, he was found fit and was promoted. 2] So far as the years 1996 to 1999 are concerned, according to the petitioner, the statement in the affidavit that he was not found fit for promotion during those years by the Promotion Committee cannot be accepted because the work of the petitioner was the same during these years as also the year 2000. The learned counsel appearing for petitioner submits that the petitioner was wrongly denied promotion from 1996 to 1999 and in 2000 he was promoted only because this Court had granted interim relief in this petition and directed the respondents to keep one post of Assistant Manager vacant. The learned counsel also submits that the petitioner is an Architect and the respondents were 4 assigning him the work of Clerk and was not giving the work of Architecture and therefore, denial of the promotion to the petitioner in this situation from the year 1996 to 1999 is illegal. So far as the year 1995 is concerned, it is submitted that the petitioner should have been considered because an Officer belonging to the batch of the petitioner was considering during the year 1995 and as per the promotion policy, if an Officer from  A batch is considered, then all Officers from that batch have to be considered. Now, so far as the grievance of the petitioner seeking promotion during 1996 to 199 9 is concerned, in our opinion, the grievance cannot be accepted because the statement on oath has been made that the respondents had constituted Promotion Committee to consider the cases of eligible Officers, that Committee considered the case of the petitioner and found him not fit for promotion during those years. In the absence of any allegation or material against anybody, in our opinion, we will have to accept the statement on oath made in the affidavit of the respondents. What 5 is further to be seen here is that though the petitioner has made a grievance about his non- promotion, there is no representation made by the petitioner against his non-promotion during these yeas for promotion. The petitioner has approached the Court without approaching the respondents making a grievance about denial of promotion during those years. Therefore, in our opinion, no relief can be granted to the petitioner so far as the years 1996 to 1999 are concerned. So far as the year 1995 is concerned, during that year, there were eight vacancies as per the record. As per the promotion policy, thrice the candidates of number of vacancies are to be considered Therefore, 24 candidates were considered. The placement of the petitioner in the seniority list was below serial No.24, the petitioner was at serial No.35 and therefore, the petitioner was not eligible for consideration during the year 1995. The learned counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that one Officer who was of the petitioner s batch was considered for promotion in the year 1995 and therefore, the petitioner should 6 have been considered, however, he fairly stated that there is no submission made in this regard in the petition. In our opinion, in the absence of specific pleadings in this regard, the petitioner cannot be heard to make such a grievance. It was submitted that the petitioner was an Architect. According to the petitioner, work was available with respondents which he could have performed as per his qualifications, but he was given the work of Clerk. We find that though a grievance appears to have been made from time to time in that regard, but the petitioner was claiming that he should be permitted to do work of Architecture privately. The petitioner never offered to resign the post. In fact, we find that in the advertisement, pursuant to which he was appointed, it is clearly stated that it is ex-cadre post. If the post is ex-cadre post, the petitioner is not really entitled to any promotion. It appears that the respondents took him as cadre candidate and gave him promotion also. Taking overall view of the matter, in our opinion, there is no substance in the petition. Petition therefore 7 fails and is dismissed, rule is discharged with no order as to costs. Parties to act on the copy of this order duly authenticated by the Associate / Private Secretary of this Court. Certified copy expedited. ( JUSTICE D.K. DESHMUKH ) ( JUSTICE R.G. KETKAR )