1 UNREPORTED IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.4108 OF 1994. Balraj S/o Laluji Birkure, Aged 31 years, Occ.Service as Physical Instructor at Zilla Parishad High School, Palaj, Taluka Bhokar, Dist. Nanded. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra through the Secretary to the Govt. of Maharashtra in Education Deptt., Mantralaya, Bombay. 2. The Deputy Director of Education, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. 3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nanded. 4. The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Nanded. 5. The Regional Service Selection Board, Aurangabad through its Secretary, Saphalya Building, Behind R.T.O. Office, Padampura, Aurangabad. ... Respondents. ... 2 Mr.S.S.Choudhari, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.K.B.Choudhari, Additioal Govt.Pleader for the State. Mr.S.V.Kurundkar, advocate for the Respondent Nos.3 and 4. ... CORAM : B.R.GAVAI AND : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,JJ. Date : 23.06.2010. ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.R.Gavai,J.) 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition praying for direction to the Respondents to continue him in service as Physical Instructor. Mr.Choudhari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that though the petitioner was duly selected, he was continued only for temporary period and after giving breaks again continued. He submits that as such the petitioner was entitled for regular appointment. 2. Firstly, it can be seen that the petition has been filed on the basis of an apprehension that the petitioner may be terminated from service. As such the petition 3 could have been dismissed only on the ground that there was no cause of action to file the present petition. However, since the petition has been admitted 16 years earlier, we are not inclined to non-suit the petitioner on this technical ground. Therefore, we have considered the petition on its own merits. 3. The perusal of the orders would reveal that the petitioner was appointed on purely temporary basis and that too subject to the approval by the Regional Selection Board. Perusal of the order would also reveal that the petitioner's appointment was for a limited period till the selected candidates are available from the Regional Selection Board. Since, the petitioner's initial appointment was not as per the procedure prescribed by law, no writ could be issued to regularise the services of the petitioner, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in case of "Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi and others" AIR 2006 Supreme Court 1806. 4 4. No merit is found in the petition, the petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) (B.R.GAVAI,J.) asp/office/wp410894