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 JURISDICTION. APPELLATE JURISDICTION. APPELLATE JURISDICTION. WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION No.6613 OF 2006. PETITION No.6613 OF 2006. PETITION No.6613 OF 2006. The Dairy Manager, Govt. Milk Scheme. ..Petitioner. Vs. D.S. Pangale. ..Respondent. WITH WRIT PETITION No.6614 OF 2006. The Dairy Manager, Govt. Milk Scheme. ..Petitioner. Vs. V.G. Sangare. ..Respondent. WITH WRIT PETITION No.6615 OF 2006. The Dairy Manager, Govt. Milk Scheme. ..Petitioner. Vs. R.G. Vithmal. ..Respondent. WITH WRIT PETITION No.6616 OF 2006. The Dairy Manager, Govt. Milk Scheme. .. Petitioner. Vs. M.H. Rahate. ..Respondent. WITH WRIT PETITION No.6617 OF 2006. The Dairy Manager, Govt. Milk Scheme. ..Petitioner. [ 2 ] 2 ] 2 ] Vs. R.D. Shinde. .. Respondent. WITH WRIT PETITION No.6618 OF 2006. The Dairy Manager, Govt.Milk Scheme. ..Petitioner. Vs. D. B. Kelkar. ..Respondent. WITH WRIT PETITION No.6619 OF 2006. The Dairy Manager, Govt. Milk Scheme. ..Petitioner. Vs. C.P. Prabhu. ..Respondent. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.6620 OF 2006. The Dairy Manager, Govt. Milk Scheme. ..Petitioner. Vs. K. G. Ghadshi. ..Respondent. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.6621 OF 2006. The Dairy Manager, Govt. Milk Scheme. ..Petitioner. Vs. B.S. Mhade. ..Respondent. WITH WRIT PETITION No.6622 OF 2006. [ 3 ] 3 ] 3 ] The Dairy Manager, Govt. Milk Scheme. ..Petitioner. Vs. A.H. Sawant. ..Respondent. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.6623 OF 2006. The Dairy Manager, Govt. Milk Scheme. ..Petitioner. Vs. C. A.Khot. ..Respondent. WITH WRIT PETITION No.6624 OF 2006. The Dairy Manager, Govt. Milk Scheme. ..Petitioner. Vs. G.G. Sawant. ..Respondent. WITH WRIT PETITION No.6625 OF 2006. The Dairy Manager, Govt. Milk Scheme. ..Petitioner. Vs. M. K. Kadam. ..Respondent. WITH WRIT PETITION No.6626 OF 2006. The Dairy Manager, Govt. Milk Scheme. ..Petitioner. Vs. S.D. Gawade. ..Respondent. WITH WRIT PETITION No.6627 of 2006. [ 4 ] 4 ] 4 ] The Dairy Manager, Govt. Milk Scheme. ..Petitioner. Vs. N. M. Tade. ..Respondent. WITH WRIT PETITION No.6628 OF 2006. The Dairy Manager, Govt. Milk Scheme. ..Petitioner. Vs. S.T. Alim. ..Respondent. WITH WRIT PETITION No.6629 OF 2006. The Dairy Manager, Govt. Milk Scheme. ..Petitioner. Vs. D.H. Ghavali. ..Respondent. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.6630 OF 2006. The Dairy Manager, Govt. Milk Scheme. ..Petitioner. Vs. S.S. Bhalekar. ..Respondent. WITH WRIT PETITION No.6631 of 2006. The Dairy Manager, Govt. Milk Scheme. ..Petitioner. Vs. J. S. Pangale. ..Respondent. [ 5 ] 5 ] 5 ] WITH WRIT PETITION NO.6632 OF 2006. The Dairy Manager, Govt. Milk Scheme. ..Petitioner. Vs. S.M. Zadgaonkar. ..Respondent. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.6633 OF 2006. The Dairy Manager, Govt. Milk Scheme. ..Petitioner. Vs. B. B. Lingayat. ..Respondent. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.6634 OF 2006. The Dairy Manager, Govt. Milk Scheme. ..Petitioner. Vs. V. B. Kamble. ..Respondent. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.6635 OF 2006. The Dairy Manager, Govt. Milk Scheme. ..Petitioner. Vs. V.D. Kadam. ..Respondent. Mr.A.P.Vanarase, A.G.P,Advocate for the Petitioner in all the Petitions. [ 6 ] 6 ] 6 ] CORAM:R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR,J. CORAM:R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR,J. CORAM:R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR,J. DATED:29TH DATED:29TH DATED:29TH NOVEMBER, 2006. NOVEMBER, 2006. NOVEMBER, 2006. P.C.:- P.C.:- P.C.:- 1. Since common question of law and facts arise in all the above matters, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Law on the point that mere completion of 240 days of continuous service in the previous year does not entitle a workman to claim permanency, is well settled. All the arguments, in relation thereto, which were sought to be raised have been negatived by the Apex Court in Apex Court in Apex Court in Secretary, Secretary, Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. State of Karnataka and others Vs. State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi Umadevi Umadevi & Ors., 2006 (4) SCC 1 & Ors., 2006 (4) SCC 1 & Ors., 2006 (4) SCC 1 and the same arguments are advanced in all the above cases. The law being well settled and as all the cases in hand are squarely covered by the decision in Uma Uma Uma Devi’s Devi’s Devi’s case, case, case, there is no case made out for interference in writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. Hence all above petitions are rejected. [R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR,J.] [R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR,J.] [R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR,J.]