1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9377 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.9377 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.9377 OF 2007 Dilip Shankar Deokar. .. Petitioner. vs. The Dean, Sangli Civil Hospital Sangli & Anr. .. Respondents. Mr. N.V. Bandiwadekar for Petitioner. Mr. N.P. Deshpande, AGP., for Respondents. CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & S.J. KATHAWALLA, JJ. S.J. KATHAWALLA, JJ. S.J. KATHAWALLA, JJ. DATE: 13TH OCTOBER, 2008. DATE: 13TH OCTOBER, 2008. DATE: 13TH OCTOBER, 2008. P.C. . Heard. 2. It is not disputed that the petitioner was an ad-hoc employee employed by the dean, Civil Hospital, Sangli. The petitioner approached the MAT by filing O. A. No. 306 of 2006 which rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has no substantive right to employment as he was not appointed in accordance with the rules and regulations. The MAT has referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in 2 the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others vs. Uma Devi & Ors. reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 And also considered earlier order passed in O.A. No. 481 of 1997 and ultimately found that as held in Uma Devi’s case the adhoc / temporary has no right to claim absorption or regularisation and rejected the application. The petitioner had also opted to raise the issue by approaching the Labour/Industrial Court which was withdrawn and original application came to be filed before MAT. 3. We do not find that MAT has committed any error or illegality in passing the impugned order. Therefore, the petition is dismissed. (J.N. Patel, J.) (J.N. Patel, J.) (J.N. Patel, J.) (S.J. Kathawalla, J.) (S.J. Kathawalla, J.) (S.J. Kathawalla, J.)