1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 794 OF 2009 Ashok Tukaram Dalvi ...Petitioners Versus Union of India & Anr. ...Respondents Mr. B.A. Aloor for the Petitioners Mr. V.S. Gokhale, Assistant Government Pleader, for the State. CORAM: B ILAL NAZKI and SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ. DATE: JUNE 23, 2009 P.C.:- This petition is misconceived, inasmuch as he relies on the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in his O.A., in which the Tribunal had directed:- “Accordingly, we direct the respondents to give priority and preference to the applicants in the matter of appointment as and when vacancy arises taking into account their first date of appointment for the purpose of same even if they are overaged provided they were within the age of the time of their initial appointment.” 2 2. It appears that after these directions were given, the respondents considered his case, and found that he did not have put in service of 240 days. If the petitioner has any grievance about the order which is passed in pursuance of the Tribunal’s order, he may have to approach the Tribunal, and not this Court. The petition is misconceived, and is dismissed. BILAL NAZKI, J. SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.