1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.3065 OF 2008 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.3067 OF 2008 W.P. 3065/08: Smt. Aawadabai B. Kendle. ...Petitioner. Vs. Krushi Utpanna Bazar Samiti & Anr. ...Respondents. .... W.P. 3067/08: Gopichand P. Navagire. ...Petitioner. Vs. Krushi Utpanna Bazar Samiti & Anr. ...Respondents. .... Mr. K. S. Bapat i/b. A.H. Fatangare for the Petitioners. None for the Respondents. ..... CORAM :DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J. April 30, 2008. P.C.: The Petitioners were appointed on a purely temporary basis as Cold Storage Supervisors between 1st February 2003 and 31st January 2005. Each of the 9 orders under which the Petitioners were appointed was for a specified term and upon the expiry of the term the 2 appointment came to an end. The Industrial Court has noted that there was no sanctioned post during the term when the Petitioners were in service as temporary employees. The last order of appointment was on 31st January 2005. The post of Cold Storage Supervisor was sanctioned by the Director only on 30th October 2006. Such a sanction is mandatory under Rule 100(5) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Rules, 1967 under which no new post can be created nor can an appointment be made to a post, (not being a temporary or officiating appointment for a period exceeding six months) without the previous approval of the Director. In the circumstances, the Petitioners who were appointed for a temporary period had no vested right to continue and the mere completion of 240 days would not confer upon them the status of a permanent employee. The reliance which has been placed during the course of the submissions on the provisions of Rule 9 of the Service Rules applicable to the First Respondent, is misconceived because Rule 9 applies to a probationary appointment. The appointments of the Petitioners were purely temporary and were not on probation. The Industrial Court has correctly appreciated the factual and legal 3 position and is not in error in dismissing the complaint of unfair labour practices instituted by the Petitioners under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. No case for interference in the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is made out. The petitions are dismissed. In the event that the selection process is initiated, it will be open to the Petitioners to apply for being appointed in the regular process and their application shall be considered in accordance with law. The Industrial Court had granted an ad-interim stay which was to remain in force until 30th April 2008. In view of the dismissal of the Writ Petitions by this Court, the stay shall stand vacated. .....