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.2557 OF 2005 WRIT PETITION NO.2557 OF 2005 WRIT PETITION NO.2557 OF 2005 Deepak Vishwanath Gahiwal ...Petitioner Deepak Vishwanath Gahiwal ...Petitioner Deepak Vishwanath Gahiwal ...Petitioner Vs. Vs. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents ----- ----- ----- Ms.D.Nagerka Adv. with Mr. Bhavesh Parmar Adv. for Ms.D.Nagerka Adv. with Mr. Bhavesh Parmar Adv. for Ms.D.Nagerka Adv. with Mr. Bhavesh Parmar Adv. for Petitioner Petitioner Petitioner Ms. M.P.Thakur A.G.P. for Respondents 1 & 4 Ms. M.P.Thakur A.G.P. for Respondents 1 & 4 Ms. M.P.Thakur A.G.P. for Respondents 1 & 4 Mr. Anilkumar Patil Adv. for Respondents 2 & 3 Mr. Anilkumar Patil Adv. for Respondents 2 & 3 Mr. Anilkumar Patil Adv. for Respondents 2 & 3 CORAM: F.I.REBELLO & ROSHAN DALVI, JJ. CORAM: F.I.REBELLO & ROSHAN DALVI, JJ. CORAM: F.I.REBELLO & ROSHAN DALVI, JJ. DATED: 8TH DECEMBER, 2005 DATED: 8TH DECEMBER, 2005 DATED: 8TH DECEMBER, 2005 P.C. P.C. P.C. . From the averments in the Petition it is clear . From the averments in the Petition it is clear . From the averments in the Petition it is clear that the Petitioner was granted temporary appointment. that the Petitioner was granted temporary appointment. that the Petitioner was granted temporary appointment. On enquiry with the learned Counsel as to whether the On enquiry with the learned Counsel as to whether the On enquiry with the learned Counsel as to whether the appointment was according to the advertisement in News appointment was according to the advertisement in News appointment was according to the advertisement in News papers or through Employment Exchange, learned Counsel papers or through Employment Exchange, learned Counsel papers or through Employment Exchange, learned Counsel says that it was not so. says that it was not so. says that it was not so. . Respondent has filed reply in which it is set . Respondent has filed reply in which it is set . Respondent has filed reply in which it is set out that the post was reserved post and the Petitioner out that the post was reserved post and the Petitioner out that the post was reserved post and the Petitioner was appointed temporarily. The Petitioner has no was appointed temporarily. The Petitioner has no was appointed temporarily. The Petitioner has no right to be regularised. Consequently this would not right to be regularised. Consequently this would not right to be regularised. Consequently this would not be a fit case where this Court should exercise its be a fit case where this Court should exercise its be a fit case where this Court should exercise its extra ordinary jurisdiction. Hence, the Petition is extra ordinary jurisdiction. Hence, the Petition is extra ordinary jurisdiction. Hence, the Petition is dismissed. dismissed. dismissed. (F.I.REBELLOW, J.) (F.I.REBELLOW, J.) (F.I.REBELLOW, J.) 2 (ROSHAN DALVI, J.) (ROSHAN DALVI, J.) (ROSHAN DALVI, J.)