1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 995 OF 1999 Sandeep Gajanan Rane ...Petitioner Versus J.N. Bora & Ors. ... Respondents The Petitioner, party-in-person, present Mr. Ravi Shetty with Mr. G. Hariharan i/by Dr. T.C. Kaushik for the Respondents. CORAM: B ILAL NAZKI and A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATE: APRIL 24, 2008 P. C.:- Heard the petitioner, as well as the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner was appointed by an order dated 15th June, 1995. The order of appointment was passed on an offer of appointment 2 issued on 1st June, 1995. The petitioner had faced the Selection Committee, and the Committee had recommended him, and on the basis of the recommendation of the Committee, the petitioner was offered a post of Farm Supervisor on provisional basis, and his selection was made subject to outcome of final decision on O.A No. 511 of 1995, which was pending between one Mr. S.D. Jadhav and the respondents on the other side. 3. The offer of appointment, which was accepted by the petitioner, had imposed certain terms. One of the terms was that the appointment would be terminated any time by one month's notice given by either side. Another term of appointment was that the appointment was purely ad hoc and temporary, and would also not confer any title for permanent employment. After the services of the petitioner were terminated after giving him one month's notice, he approached the Tribunal, and the Tribunal dismissed O.A. Therefore, this Writ Petition has been filed. 4. The case of the petitioner is that his appointment could not be termed as ad hoc or temporary, because the appointment has been 3 made on regular basis in accordance with the rules. Whether the appointment was made in accordance with the rules on the subject or de hors the rules would not be material in this case, because the condition was imposed that the appointment would be terminated on one month's notice by either side. As this condition has been accepted by the petitioner, therefore, if his appointment was revoked by giving him one month's notice, without a stigma, this would not entitle him to any relief from this Court. 5. The petitioner has further submitted that certain documents were suppressed from the Tribunal, and, therefore, the order of the Tribunal was also bad. He referred to rules, and he also referred to some letter written by him to the Department. If he wanted some letter written by him to the Department produced before the Tribunal, he should have made an application in that behalf, and, therefore, in our view, there has not been suppression of any material document from the Tribunal by the respondents. Since the order of appointment of the petitioner was clear and unambiguous that services could be terminated with one month's notice by either side; and if the respondents want to terminate 4 the services of the petitioner, they had to do nothing, except to give one month's notice, which they have done. 6. In the above view of the matter, we do not find merit in the petition. It is accordingly dismissed. Rule stands discharged. 7. An authenticated copy of this order be given to the petitioner. BILAL NAZKI, J. A.P. BHANGALE, J.