1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2090 OF 2009 Jaysingrao Madhav Ghadge .... Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ..... Respondents Mr.Prashant Bhavake i/by Mr.N.V.Bandiwadekar, for the petitioner. Mr.V.S.Gokhale, AGP, for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr.A.M.Joshi, for respondent Nos.3 and 4. CORAM :P.B.MAJMUDAR & R.G.KETKAR, JJ. DATE : 30TH MARCH, 2010 P.C. 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the action of the respondent – Management in not upgrading the petitioner by appointing him in B.Ed. Pay scale in spite of the fact that when the vacancy become available and more particularly, the petitioner had already acquired and improved educational qualifications. Reliance is made on the Government Resolution dated 09­07­1987. It is further required to be pointed out that the aforesaid Government Resolution is struck down by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.1850 of 2009 by order dated 10­12­2009. This Court has not approved such scheme on the basis of the Government resolution. The Division Bench at the relevant part has observed that “if the appointments are permitted to be made by up­ 2 gradation, in our opinion, it will deny an opportunity to compete to other candidates who may be eligible and qualified. It is also found that it will also not be in the interest of the students in our opinion, therefore, the scheme which is contained in the letter dated 09­07­1987 apart from being contrary to the provisions of the Act, may also be violative of the guarantees contained in Article 14 of the Constitution. In view of the same, this Court declined to issue any writ for implementing the said Government Resolution/letter. 2. Since the point in issue is already covered by the said judgment, which is not in dispute, no relief can be given to the petitioner in this petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to point out any additional facts to justify the claim of the petitioner for up­ gradation. In view of this, the writ petition is dismissed. Needless to say that if the petitioner claims further promotion in future, his case is required to be considered in accordance with law and this order will not come in the way of the petitioner for such consideration. ( R.G.KETKAR, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. )