14.as.wp.7472.2006.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7472 OF 2006 Sudhakar Vithoba Nehe and anr. … Petitioners Versus The Chairman – Lok Shikshan Mandal Sinnar and ors. … Respondents *** Mr. P. N. Joshi (through VC) a/w Mr. Bipin A. Singh for Petitioners. Mr. Hamid Mulla, AGP for Respondent-State. *** CORAM : M.M. SATHAYE, J. DATE : 12 OCTOBER, 2026 P.C. : 1. The Petitioners are challenging the order dated 31.08.2006 passed by the Presiding officer, School Tribunal, Nashik Region, Nashik, in Appeal No.9 of 2006. By the said impugned order, the appeal filed by the Petitioners, challenging the promotion granted to Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and seeking directions to promote them, has been dismissed. 2. Petition was admitted on 14.11.2008. However, no interim relief was granted. 3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner assailed the impugned order, contending, inter alia that if there were only two posts and one of them was reserved for Scheduled Castes, it would amount to 50% reservation, whereas under Rule 9(10) of the MEPS Rules, 1981, the reservation for Schedule Caste is to the extent of 24% only. He Vina Khadpe 1 VINA ARVIND KHADPE Digitally signed by VINA ARVIND KHADPE Date: 2026.10.12 18:27:17 +0530 14.as.wp.7472.2006.doc submitted that therefore, the second post, in which Respondent No.3 came to be appointed, could not be considered as a reserved post. 4. Even though the impugned order is challenged on merits, learned Counsel for the Petitioners has fairly submitted that, during the long pendency of the Petition, both the Petitioners have retired, and Respondent No.3 and 4, whose promotion was challenged, have also retired. 5. Record shows that the impugned order was passed about 20 years ago in August, 2006. The Petition has remained pending without any interim relief and in the interregnum, the Petitioners as well as the contesting Respondents have also retired. 6. In that view of the matter, arguments on merits are merely academic and no fruitful purpose would be served by entering into the merits of the impugned order. 7. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of as having become infructuous. 8. All concerned to act on duly authenticated or digitally signed QR verifiable copy of this order. (M.M. SATHAYE, J.) Vina Khadpe 2