1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6704 OF 2009 Annasaheb s/o Shamrao Bare, Age: 52 years, Occ: Service, Dy.Regional Engineer, P.W.D. Special Project, Sub Division, Gangapur, Tq. Gangapur, District Aurangabad. .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra, Ministry of Public Works, and others. .. Respondents ... Mr. S.D. Ghayal, Advocate for petitioner. Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 to 4. ... CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR & S.S. SHINDE, JJ. DATE : 19TH JANUARY, 2010 PER COURT : The petitioner filed Original Application essentially praying that the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 be directed to promote the petitioner to the post of Clerk from the post of Peon from March 1989 and for further direction to pay the 2 remuneration to the petitioner of extra work of the Clerk from 1992 till the date of filing of the application. The original application has been rejected by the Tribunal mainly on the ground that same was barred by limitation. The argument of the petitioner before the Tribunal as reiterated before this Court is that the petitioner had made representations from time to time and his last representation is still pending. In that background, it is inappropriate to take the view that the original application was barred by limitation. We are not impressed by this submission. The Tribunal has rightly recorded that the representations submitted by the petitioner were rejected relate back to order passed in 1994. The fact that the petitioner continued to make representations even thereafter would not revive the period of limitation. 2. The Apex Court in the matter of Administrator of Union Territory of Daman and 3 Diu and others Vs. R.D. Valand, reported in 1995 Supp. (4) Supreme Court Cases 593, has opined that merely because the candidate makes on submitting successive representations cannot stop the limitation period. Thus understood, no infirmity has been committed by the Tribunal. 3. In any case, the only relief prayed by the petitioner is to promote him to the post of Clerk. The respondents through Counsel submitted that the petitioner is now being considered for such promotion and appropriate decision will be taken in accordance with law. In that case, the petitioner may not be entitled to relief with effect from March 1989, which is the prayer made in the Original Application. However, since the Original Application has been rejected, it is not open to examine that claim of the petitioner. Moreover, the petitioner has not chosen to challenge the promotion of respondent Nos. 5 and 6 to the Original Application, which according to him, was in the 4 nature of supercession of the petitioner. 4. Be that as it may, we find no merit in the petition except to observe that the respondent Authority would consider the claim of the petitioner for promotion, in accordance with law. The petition is disposed of accordingly. ( S.S. SHINDE, J. ) ( A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.) sut/JAN10/wp6704.09