{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 10796 OF 2010 Dr.Sonali d/o Smaran Dahiwale PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & others RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.Jadhav Narsing B, advocate for the petitioner Mr.S.K.Kadam, AGP for respondent State ....... [CORAM : NARESH H.PATIL, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.] DATE : 26th November 2010 PER COURT: 1. Heard. The petitioner, who has passed MDS, was appointed by the Dean, Government Dental College and Hospital, Aurangabad, initially for a period of 120 days, thereafter, vide order dated 29.12.2008, for 364 days and ultimately by order dated 28.08.2009 for 364 days. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appointment of the petitioner was continued till today. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the light of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the {2} case of “Hargurpratap Singh V/s State of Punjab and others” reported in (2007) 13 SCC 292, an ad hoc employee cannot be replaced by another ad hoc employee and, therefore, the services of the petitioner require to be continued till a suitable candidate selected by MPSC is available with the respondents. 2. Mr.Kadam, learned AGP submits that the petitioner has executed an agreement / bond in favour of the State Government and was appointed for a period of not less than 2 years. In the light of the Government Resolution dated 7th September 2010, the respondents, in accordance with the policy adopted by the State, desire to appoint another candidate as a lecturer, who has executed such an agreement / bond. 3. In these facts of the case, we do not find that the petitioner was appointed as ad hoc employee. Therefore, the respondents are entitled to appoint any other available candidate, in accordance with the Government Resolution dated 7th September 2010. The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal has considered all these aspects of the matter, the issues raised by the petitioner and has discussed the judgments cited. We have perused the judgment of the Tribunal and the relevant documents. The Tribunal has also observed that the principle of one ad hoc cannot be replaced by another ad hoc, is no more a good law. 4. In the facts of the case, no interference is called for in {3} the impugned order, in the writ jurisdiction and hence the petition deserves to be dismissed. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] [NARESH H.PATIL, J.] drp/B10/wp10796-10