1 UNREPORTED IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.2442 OF 1997. 1. Hanumant S/o Gopalrao Gadkar, Age major, Occ.Nil, R/o Ruibhar, Tq. and Dist. Osmanabad. 2. Murlidhar S/o Dhondiba Sawant, Age major, Occ.Nil, R/o as above. ... Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra. 2. The Superintending Engineer, M.S.E.B.Osmanabad, Tq. and Dist. Osmanabad. 3. The Executive Engineer, Division Office No.1 and 2 M.S.E.B.Osmanabad. Tq. and Dist. Osmanabad. ... Respondents. ... Mr.M.R.Andhale, advocate for the petitioners. Mr.K.B.Choudhari, Addl.Govt. Pleader for the State. Mr.A.S.Shelke, advocate for the Respondent Nos.2 and 3. ... 2 CORAM : B.R.GAVAI AND : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,JJ. Date : 15.07.2010. ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S.V.Gangapurwala,J.) 1. The petitioners who are ex-employees of the Respondents Board seek direction against the Respondents for fresh recruitment and in effect challenge the advertisement so also interviews conducted pursuant to the said advertisement. 2. It is the case of the present petitioners that they are daily rated workers and subsequently retrenched. Against the said retrenchment, the petitioners had approached the Labour Court. The petition filed by the petitioners before the Labour Court came to be dismissed. The said order of the Labour Court was confirmed by the Industrial Court. Mr.Andhale, learned counsel for the petitioners submit that as the petitioners were already working on daily wages with the Respondent No.2, they should be considered on priority basis and also relies on the policy of the Respondent No.2 about filling 3 of the posts. 3. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were retrenched and the order of retrenchment has been confirmed by the Labour Court and the Industrial Court. 4. The petitioners can not have a right to seek a direct appointment dehors the selection process. In view of the judgment of the Apex Court in "State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi and others" AIR 2006 Supreme Court 1806, it will not be permissible even for the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 to make any direct appointment nor any right could be created in favour of the petitioners to seek direct appointments. 5. In light of the above, no case for interference is made out. The Writ Petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) (B.R.GAVAI,J.) asp/office/wp244297 4