Bombay High Court

HARISHCHANDRA WAMANRAO AWARIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR ITS SECRETARY AND ANOTHER

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The review application is dismissed as there is no ground to entertain it.

Summary

The High Court of Bombay (Aurangabad bench) considered a review application filed by Harishchandra Wamanrao Awari challenging the court’s earlier order dated 3 August 2026 in Writ Petition No.7061 of 2014. The applicant argued that his substantive promotion should be deemed effective from 19 July 2007, the date he became eligible, contending that a junior colleague had been promoted earlier and that the post was vacant since that date. The court held that mere eligibility does not confer a right to a promotion from that date and found no apparent error in its earlier order. It also observed that the criteria laid down by the Supreme Court in Malleeswari v. K. Suguna (2025 INSC 1080) for entertaining a review were not satisfied. Consequently, the review application was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the applicant is entitled to a deemed date of promotion from the date he became eligible
Whether the order dated 03.08.2026 contains any apparent error justifying a review
Whether the criteria for entertaining a review under Supreme Court precedent Malleeswari v. K. Suguna are met

Subjects

promotion
deemed date of promotion
review jurisdiction
eligibility
administrative law
seniority
reservation
civil procedure

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:39733-DB



                                                     1
                                                                         pb-1-ra-158-2026

                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                       BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                             REVIEW APPLICATION (CIVIL) NO. 158 OF 2026
                                          IN WP/7061/2014

                                  Harishchandra Wamanrao Awari
                                              VERSUS
                       The State Of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary And Another
                                                 ...
                Mr. B. A. Darak, Advocate for Applicant
                Mr. R. S. Wani, AGP for Respondent-State
                Mr. M. M. Navandar, Advocate for Respondent no.2
                                                …..
                                     CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT &
                                                 AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, JJ.
                                        DATED      : 31ST AUGUST, 2026

                P.C. :-

                .         Heard learned Advocate for the applicant, learned Advocate for

                respondent no.2 and learned AGP for respondent-State.

                2.        The order sought to be reviewed is the order dated

                03.08.2026, passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.7061 of 2014. It

                is an admitted fact that the applicant was temporarily promoted on

                06.05.2010. However, substantive promotion was given to him in the

                year 2014. It was argued that Mr. Bhagyawant, who happened to be

                junior to the petitioner, was promoted prior to the petitioner. It is

                also admitted that he was given promotion on the post reserved for a

                person belonging to Scheduled Caste category. The present applicant
                                  2
                                                      pb-1-ra-158-2026

belongs to the Open category. As such, there was no question of

special concession. This point was already argued before this Court.

This Court by considering all the aspects granted deemed date of

promotion as 06.05.2010.

3.    Learned Advocate Mr. B. A. Darak has made the same

submissions which were advanced during the course of hearing of

the Writ Petition, which have already been considered by this Court.

Merely because the post was vacant since 19.07.2007, there is no

ground to grant deemed date of promotion from the said date. It is

not the case of the petitioner that any person junior to him belonging

to the same category was given promotion prior to him. The main

submission was that since the petitioner became eligible on

19.07.2007, he ought to have been promoted from the said date.

4.    We find that merely because a person becomes eligible for

promotion, it does not confer any right upon him to claim promotion

from the date on which he became eligible. In any case, no error

apparent on the face of record is pointed out. The Hon’ble Supreme

Court in the case of Malleeswari Vs. K. Suguna and Another, reported

at 2025 INSC 1080, has laid down the criteria for entertaining a

Review. We do not find that any case is made out even to entertain
                                3
                                                   pb-1-ra-158-2026

the Review Application considering in view of the principles laid

down in the said judgment. Considering above, the Review

Application stands dismissed.




     [AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J]           [KISHORE C. SANT, J.]

Rushikesh/2026

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…