1 W.P.3840.05 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3840 OF 2005 Vijay Tulshiram Gondhalekar Dead through its L.Rs. Smt.Chanda Vijay Gondhalekar. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS Union of India, and others. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Shri. A.S.Bayas,Advocate for Petitioner. Shri.Alok Sharma,Standing Counsel for Resp.No.1 Shri. M.M.Patil,Beed,Advocate for Resp.No.2. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE : 18TH AUGUST, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. In the year 1990, deceased Petitioner-Vijay Tulshiram Gondhalekar was working as Branch Manager with respondent No.2-Marathwada Rural Bank. The respondent No.2-Bank had adopted procedure for promoting certain employees. The 2 W.P.3840.05 petitioner participated in the said selection process, but could not be selected for promotion. The petitioner, therefore, filed present Writ Petition in the year 2005 for claiming Promotion. 3. It is informed by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner- Vijay Tulshiram died in the year 2007, therefore, petitioner’s wife was brought on record to prosecute the proceeding of this Writ Petition. 4. Mr. Bayas, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Caste claims of the respondent Nos. 3 to 7 were not validated and hence they were not entitled for promotion at the relevant time. The procedure adopted by the respondent No.2-Bank is faulty and against its rules and regulations. 5. The respondent No.2-Bank filed affidavit in reply. 3 W.P.3840.05 6. Mr. M.M.Patil,learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2-bank on instructions submits that the caste claims of the respondent Nos 4 and 7 have been validated by the Committee and the caste claims of the remaining respondents are pending with the Committee. He also submits that the petitioner participated in the procedure prescribed by the Bank for selection of candidates for promotion, the petitioner now can not raise any grievance after he participated in the process but could not succeed. 7. In the facts of the case, subsequent developments in the matter have taken place. The petitioner died in the year 2007. The petitioner was dis-entitled to claim the promotion because he participated in the procedure prescribed by the bank, but could not succeed. The contention of the petitioner is that the procedure adopted by the bank for promoting candidate is against its rules and circulars. 4 W.P.3840.05 8. In the light of the facts, at this stage it is not proper to deal with that issue, therefore, we are not inclined to admit this petition. 9. We direct the respondent No.1 to take effective steps to verify the caste claims of the respondent Nos.3, 5 and 6 at the earliest. There is no merit in the petition. The Writ Petition stands rejected. Sd/- Sd/- [K.K. TATED, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] MTK