1 S.A. 1087.2005 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 1087 OF 2005 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's Orders Mr. P.G.Deshmukh, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. N.L.Jadhav, Advocate for the respondent. ......................... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 08/12/2010 PER COURT : 1. This is plaintiff’s Second Appeal. 2. The plaintiff had filed Suit claiming mandatory injunction to the promotional post and deemed date. The trial Court dismissed the Suit. The plaintiff preferred Appeal. The appellate Court also dismissed the Appeal. The plaintiff has assailed the said Judgment in the present Second Appeal. 3. Mr. P.G.Deshmukh, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the lower appellate Court while non suiting the plaintiff 2 S.A. 1087.2005 has considered the confidential report and the position which stood at the time when the plaintiff was reverted. But, subsequently, in a Suit of 1983, the plaintiff was granted the relief and his reversion was also set aside. Even the Civil Court had passed decree that the plaintiff be awarded with all consequential benefits. According to Mr. Deshmukh, learned counsel, in such circumstances, the confidential report prior to 1983 would be not relevant in considering the case of the plaintiff for promotion. The Courts below on this count have committed error. 4. Per contra, Mr. N.L. Jadhav, learned counsel for the respondent contended that both the Courts on appreciation of facts have come to the correct conclusion and have dismissed the Suit. Even no notice was issued as is required under the Act. 5. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the Judgments delivered by both the Courts. . 6. The Courts have considered the factual and the legal matrix. No doubt, the contention of Mr. Deshmukh, learned counsel that the earlier confidential report would not be relevant, is required to be considered, but 3 S.A. 1087.2005 the plaintiff has not brought on record any instance to show that the juniors to him were promoted so as to give the plaintiff the deemed date of promotion. The plaintiff had made allegation that one Mr. Pandav, who was junior to him has been promoted. The Courts have taken into consideration the fact that said Mr. Pandav was at Sr.No. 3 in the seniority list and the present plaintiff was at Sr.No. 7. So, it can not be said that the plaintiff should have been promoted prior to said Mr. Pandav. There is no other material brought by the plaintiff to show that the juniors to him were promoted. So, apart from the fact that the Suit was not tenable for non issuing the notice even on factual matrix, the plaintiff does not have any . 7. In that light of the above, the Second Appeal being sans merit, is dismissed, however with no order as to costs. [ S.V.GANGAPURWALA ] JUDGE knp/SA 1087.2005