6.wp.237.10 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.237 OF 2010 Shri Rahul Jaywant Haribhakta. ..Petitioner. Versus Shri Narendra Hiraman Wasne and others. ..Respondents. .... Mr.A.V. Anturkar, Advocate i/b. Mr.Sugandh B. Deshmukh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr.S.R. Nargolkar, AGP for respondent Nos.2 to 4. .... CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH, AND A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 21ST JANUARY, 2010. P.C.:- 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. Perused the record. The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai has held that if the contention of the present petitioner, who was respondent No.3 before the Tribunal, is upheld the advertisement pursuant to which he has been appointed will be illegal advertisement because it does not comply with the recruitment rules. In that case also the appointment of the petitioner will be invalid because he was appointed pursuant to 6.wp.237.10 2 an illegal advertisement. Therefore, in our opinion no interference with the impugned order is called for. Hence, petition is rejected. (D.K.DESHMUKH,J) (A.R. JOSHI,J)