IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. APPELLATE JURISDICTION. APPELLATE JURISDICTION. WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION No.316 OF 1995. PETITION No.316 OF 1995. PETITION No.316 OF 1995. Mrs. Vrinda Mukund Pande, aged about 42 years,a residing at Kamaladevi Housing Society Behind Bus Depot at and Post Karmala Pin 413203 District Sholapur. ..Petitioner. Petitioner. Petitioner. Versus. 1] Vidya Vikas Mandal,Karmala At Karmala, District Sholapur (Through: Its Secretary). 2] Yeshwantrao Chavan Mahavidyalaya at Karmala District Sholapur (Through:- Its Principal). 3] The Registrar, Shivaji University, Kolhapur. 4] Ministry of Education, the Government of Maharashtra, Mantralaya,Bombay - 32. Through: the Secretary Higher and Technical Education and Service, Planning Division. 5] The Administrative Officer (Pune Region) Higher Education (Grants) Central Building, Pune 001. .. ..Respondents. Respondents. Respondents. Mr.K.Y. Mandlik, Advocate for the Petitioner. None for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Ms. V.S.Mhaispurkar, A.G.P.for Respdt Nos.4 & 5. CORAM:R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR,J. CORAM:R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR,J. CORAM:R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR,J. DATED:13TH DATED:13TH DATED:13TH NOVEMBER, 2006. NOVEMBER, 2006. NOVEMBER, 2006. ORAL ORAL ORAL JUDGMENT. JUDGMENT. JUDGMENT. 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the [ 2 ] 2 ] 2 ] petitioner and the learned A.G.P.for respondent Nos. 4 and 5. Perused the records. The petitioner challenges judgment and order dated 11th November, 1994 passed by the College Tribunal, Pune in Appeal No. 34 of 1994. 2. Undisputedly, the appointment of the petitioner was on temporary basis as the post in which she was appointed meant for reserved category candidate and undisputedly petitioner does not belong to reserved category candidate. The approval granted for the appointment of the petitioner was also for the fixed term and taking into consideration the fact that the reserved category candidate was not available at the relevant time to fill the said post. 3. Since the appointment of the petitioner was made in the vacancy meant for reserved category candidate and the petitioner does not belong to the reserved category candidate, no grievance can be made by the petitioner that no permanent employment is being given to the petitioner in the said post. The management [ 3 ] 3 ] 3 ] was perfectly justfied in giving temporary appointment to the petitioner and considering the same, Tribunal has dismissed the appeal for which the Petitioner had made grievance about termination of her services and requested to give appointment on permanent basis in the said post. 4. For the reasons stated above,therefore, I do not find any justification for interference in the judgment and order of the Tribunal. No case is made out for interference and,therefore, the Petition fails and is dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. [R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR,J] [R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR,J] [R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR,J]