1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.1250 OF 2010. Saniya D/o Mainoddin Saudagar ... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra and others. ... Respondents. ... Mr.Amit S.Deshpande, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.S.K.Tambe, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for the State. Mr.A.R.Nikam, advocate for the Respondent No.2 ... CORAM : P.V.HARDAS AND : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,JJ. Date : 21.04.2010. PER COURT 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, by which the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ of Mandamus for quashing and setting aside an 2 advertisement dated 6.2.2010, issued by the Respondent No.2 inviting applications for the four (4) posts of Shikshan Sevak in the Municipal Council, Latur. The petitioner also prays for directing the Respondents by issuance of a writ of Mandamus to absorb the petitioner on the post of Shikshan Sevak. The petitioner came to be appointed as a Shikshan Sevak on the basis of a Resolution passed by the Municipal Council, Latur. The appointment of the petitioner was not as per the recruitment procedure prescribed by law but came to be appointed as regular trained teachers who were not available and there was a dearth of availability of trained teachers. The appointment of the petitioner was not on a regular pay-scale but was on payment of honorarium and for the purpose of gaining experience only. The petitioner continued in that capacity and ultimately when an advertisement was issued, the petitioner has filed the present petition. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged before that the Chief Executive Officer of 3 the Municipal Council, Latur has recommended the case of the petitioner for being considered for appointment as a Shikshan Sevak. It is then further stated before us that on account of unblemished service rendered by the petitioner to the utmost satisfaction of the superiors, the petitioner deserves to be appointed and the advertisement deserves to be quashed and set aside. The learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader on behalf of the Respondents-State has urged before us that the petitioner has no legally enforcible right to claim to be appointed. The petitioner can not in law short-circuit the recruitment procedure and claim that he should be appointed. It is further stated that the Respondents had stated that the case of the petitioner would be considered in the event the petitioner competes along with others. 3. Undisputedly the petitioner can not short-circuit the recruitment procedure merely because the petitioner has been working in the capacity of an employee who has joined the services for the purpose of gaining experience. 4 The petitioner will have to compete along with others at the time of selection and recruitment to the post of the Shikshan Sevak. Since the petitioner has no legally enforcible right, we find that there is no merit in the petition and the petition is, therefore, summarily dismissed with no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) (P.V.HARDAS,J.) asp/office/wp1250.10