1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR MCA NO. 721/2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2580 OF 2011 (Atish s/o Bramhanand Tembhurne vs. Union of India & Anr.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & P.D. KODE, JJ. AUGUST 02, 2011. Heard Shri Sudame, learned counsel for the applicant/ petitioner. The contention is, this Court has while dismissing writ petition proceeded under the impression that the matter before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) was for regularization. The learned counsel states that challenge before the CAT was to termination and prayer was to reinstate the applicant with full back wages and consequential benefits. We have noted that all appointments were for 89 days and as such it is apparent that the applicant had no right to post. We have also in our order dated 13.06.2011 noted the Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi, reported at 2006 SC 1806. It is apparent that completion of 240 days, therefore, does not cloth the applicant with any right. We find the review misconceived. Hence, the same is rejected. JUDGE JUDGE *GS.