1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO.2256 OF 2006 (DR.RAJESH RATANLAL AGRAWAL Vs PRINCIPAL SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT & ANR.) _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders ______________________________________________________________________________________________ Shri Rajeev Madkholkar, Advocate for Petitioner. Shri D.P. Thakare, A.G.P. for Respondent/ State. CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR & R.C.CHAVAN, JJ. DATED : APRIL 23, 2008. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. We find no reason to interfere with the impugned decision of the authority (Annexure-L) in terminating the services of the petitioner vide order dated 19th April, 2006 for the reasons recorded in the said order. 3. The argument of the petitioner that the petitioner was initially appointed by the Corporation in exercise of powers under Section 53 of the Act for which reason his appointment 2 cannot be termed as illegal, is devoid of merit. Similarly, the argument that the procedure under Section 54 of the Act for appointment of the petitioner was not attracted is of no avail. 4. The fact that the Corporation has power to appoint employees under Section 53 does not permit the Corporation to make such an appointment without following procedure established by law in the form of Section 54 in the first instance. Thus understood, the appointment of the petitioner has been rightly considered to be illegal, necessitating order of termination. 5. In these circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere in this writ petition. 6. However, we place on record the statement made by the Corporation that till the Corporation follows necessary procedure for making fresh appointment to the post, which has become available on account of termination of the petitioner, till such time the petitioner will be continued in service on 3 contract basis unless it is necessary to dispense with his services for tangible reasons. The Corporation also assures to take necessary steps for appointment to the subject post on regular basis so as to replace the petitioner within four months from today. That assurance is also accepted. 7. Needless to observe that the petitioner may be free to participate in the said appointment process that application be considered by the Corporation on its own merits, subject to eligibility. 8. The petition is disposed of on the above terms. JUDGE JUDGE RR.