1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3688 of 1994 Abdul Kadar s/o. Mahamad Usman Age Major Occupation service resident of Municipal Council, Jalna. Petitioner Versus 1] The State of Maharashtra 2] The Municipal Council, Jalna (through its Chief Officer). 3] The Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Jalna District, Jalna. Respondents Mr. J.J. Patil, Advocate holding for Mr. V.D. Sapkal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. H.K. Mundhe, Advocate for the respondent No.2 Mrs. S.D. Shelke, AGP for respondent No.1. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & S.V. GANGAPURWALA,JJ. DATE : 24TH JUNE, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT [ PER B.R. GAVAI,J.] : 2 1] By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 12th August, 1994, thereby reverting the petitioner to the post of “Road Clerk”. 2] The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though vide order dated 18th May, 1994, the petitioner was given temporary promotion for a period of one year, the order was cancelled and he was abruptly reverted vide order dated 17th August, 1994. He, therefore, submits that since the order of reversion has been effected without giving an opportunity to the petitioner of hearing heard, the same is not sustainable in law. 3] From perusal of the order dated 18th May, 1994, it is clear that the promotion granted to the petitioner is on temporary basis. The promotion is granted on the condition that the petitioner shall acquire the requisite qualification i.e. Diploma in Construction /Sub- Overseers course, within a period of one year from the date of promotion. 4] The learned counsel for the Municipal Council, on the basis of the record,has further pointed out that the petitioner failed to acquire the aforesaid requisite qualification within the stipulated period. It could further be seen that, at the relevant time, appointments were to be made made on the basis of the recommendation of the District Selection Committee, under the Chairmanship of the Collector. The Municipal Council had also accordingly received names of certain candidates alongwith the recommendations from the District Selection Committee. In this factual background, there was no right in the petitioner to claim 3 promotion. In any event, it can be seen that the order, which promoted the petitioner, was a purely temporary order. As such, no vested right has accrued in favour of the petitioner. The petition, being without any merit, is dismissed. Rule is discharged. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J.] [B.R. GAVAI,J.] grt/wp