IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 4952 OF 200 PETITION NO. 4952 OF 200 PETITION NO. 4952 OF 2004 Kum.Hema Shivajirao Jagtap.... Petitioner versus State of Maharashtra & ors. ...... Respondent. Shri A.M.Joshi for the petitioner Shri Uday Warunjikar for Respondents 3 to 6 Shrhi M.H.Solkar AGp for Respondents 1 and 2. CORAM; CORAM; CORAM; A.P. DESHPANDE, J. A.P. DESHPANDE, J. A.P. DESHPANDE, J. DATED; DATED; DATED; 9TH MARCH, 2007 9TH MARCH, 2007 9TH MARCH, 2007 P.C.; P.C.; P.C.; 1. The petitioner had hardly put in one year of service when she came to be terminated. After the termination, the management issued an advertisement and in the said advertisement, the post wherein the petitioner was earlier working is also advertised. The petitioner and others, in response to the advertisement applied for the said post. The petitioner came to be rejected in the selection process and after rejection of the petitioner’s claim in the selection process, the petitioner filed an appeal challenging her termination so also her rejection in the process of selection in which process, one Mr. Bhosale came to be selected. In this facts situation the tribunal has dismissed the appeal by holding that the grievance really made by the petitioner in memo of appeal is one of her rejection in the selection process and not the termination. Th tribunal has also found that there is no cause of action for the petitioner in questioning the correctness of the termination. The person selected in the said selection process was also not impleaded as party respondent before the tribunal. Taking over all view of the matter the tribunal has dismissed the appeal. 2. Prused the judgment and order. No interference is called for. Writ petition is therefore summarily dismissed. ....