1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4 OF 2008 Dr. Balu Nana Kamble ..... Petitioner V/s The Servants of India Society & Ors. ..... Respondents. ----- Mrs. Anita A. Agarwal for the petitioners. Mr. A.R. Anturkar i/b Mr. S.B. Deshmukh for respondent No.2. Mr. S.D. Rajrikar for respondent No.3. Mr. A. Patel, AGP for Respondent No.4. ----- CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & V.M. KANADE, JJ. DATE : 23rd January, 2008. P.C.: 1. The petitioner was in the service of respondent No.3. He secured leave for one year from respondent No.3 and joined the employment with respondent No.2. He was appointed as a Professor on probation for a period of one year which was extended. The period of lien is now over. His services have been terminated by respondent No.2 by order dated 30/04/2007. The petitioner was on probation with respondent No.2. His services have been terminated during the probation period. It is also an admitted position that he 2 proceeded on leave from 10/01/2007 to 31/01/2007 without getting his leave sanctioned by the respondent No.2. Thus, the services of the Petitioner with respondent No.2 have come to an end and no exception can be taken to the termination of services of the Petitioner by respondent No.2 because he was only a probationer. He has no right to the post. The petitioner, we have been informed, has joined the respondent No.3 and he is in their service. 2. The petitioner, by this Petition, is asking a writ of declaration that he is entitled to voluntary retirement scheme. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3 informs us that he has not applied for any voluntary retirement. Therefore, there is no question of granting him relief claimed in prayer clause (b)(i). So far as the reliefs claimed in prayer clauses (b)(ii) and (c) are concerned, they are against respondent Nos. 1 and 2. As observed above, services of the Petitioner have been terminated by respondent No.2. What is surprising is that though a copy of the order terminating the services of the Petitioner is annexed to the Petition, there is no relief claimed for setting aside that order. The entire petition is misconceived and misdirected. It is rejected. (D.K. DESHMUKH, J.) 3 (V.M. KANADE, J.)