1 1160.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1160 OF 2010 WITH CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.340 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1160 OF 2010 Shri.Ranganath Tukaram Ilag ...Petitioner Versus Brihan Mumbai Municipal Corporation ...Respondent ...... Mr.P.D.Patel for Petitioner. Mrs.V.S.Gharapure for Respondent. ...... CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATED:- MARCH 17, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that he had become eligible for further promotion as back as in the year 2009 from the post of Senior Accounts Officer to the post of Deputy Chief Accountant. However, inspite of repeated representations made by him, his case was not considered by the Department for reasons best known to them. This argument has been countered by the respondents by filing reply affidavit sworn by Beena 2 1160.10 K.Karve, Deputy Chief Accountant dated 30th November, 2010. This reply affidavit asserts that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Senior Accounts Officer only with effect from 2nd March, 2009. His position in the seniority list of Accounts Officer (Grade-I) is 18th position. Insofar as Narsule , who was also working as Accounts Officer, Grade-I is concerned, he was the senior most candidate as he stood 6th in the seniority list. It is thus clear that the petitioner is not due for promotion since there are other senior persons to him in the seniority list of Accounts Officer, Grade-I. Further, the reply affidavit also asserts that there is no vacancy in the post of Deputy Chief Accountant in the reserve category. 3. Viewed thus, the question of issuing any mandamus to the respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Chief Accountant, is devoid of merits. Accordingly, this Petition fails. The same is dismissed. 4. In view of the above order, Civil Application also stands disposed of. (MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)