(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 5961 OF 2008 Ghanashyam s/o. Malhari Jethe, Age : 33 years, Occupation : Nil, R/o. Plot No.28, Sidheshwar Colony, Chopda, District : Jalgaon. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Revenue & Forest Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 2. The Collector, Jalgaon. 3. The Tahsildar, Chopda, District : Jalgaon. .. Respondents. .......................... Mr. S.B. Talekar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. K.G. Patil, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 to 3. .......................... (2) CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & R.K. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 20TH JULY 2009. COURT'S ORDER : 1. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the judgment and order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai, Bench at Aurangabad, dated 18th December 2007, in Original Application No. 378/2007, thereby dismissing the application filed by the present petitioner. 2. It is the contention of the petitioner, that he was working as Part Time Water Server (Peon). It is further contention of the petitioner, that the other employees, similarly situated, were regularized and that though the petitioner was also entitled to be regularized, he was denied such a benefit. 3. Perusal of the order impugned would reveal that a specific stand was taken on behalf of the State Government, that the petitioner was not appointed by a competent authority but he was appointed purely on temporary basis as a Water Server by the Tahsildar. Not only this, but in the affidavit, filed by the State in reply to the notice issued by this court, it has been specifically stated that the employees, who were regularized, were appointed as per the policy of the Government to provide financial assistance to the unemployed graduate / diploma holders. It has been stated that the petitioner was not appointed under the said scheme. Even according to the petitioner, he was only matriculate when he was appointed. It can be (3) seen that the Government Resolutions or Government Circulars, on which the petitioner relies, cannot be made applicable to his case. 4. In that view of the matter, we do not find that any patent error has been committed by the Tribunal, so as to warrant interference in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. Petition is, therefore, dismissed. ( R.K. DESHPANDE ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp5961