1 Writ Petition No. 7751/2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD Writ Petition No.7751 Of 2009 Khwaja Magdum Ansari Sevabhavi Sanstha, Pathrud. .. Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra And Others. .. Respondents. -------- Smt. A.S. Rasal, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri. B.V. Wagh, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent No.1. Shri. N.L. Jadhav, Advocate, for respondent No.2. -------- CORAM: NARESH H PATIL & S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE: 7th JANUARY 2011 PER COURT : 1) Heard. 2) The petitioner was supplying cooked food under a scheme to the Zilla Parishad schools. By an order dated 19-6-2003 , (Exhibit "B") the Head Master of the concerned school had permitted the petitioner to supply cooked food 2 Writ Petition No. 7751/2009 with a condition that the work allotted to the petitioner would be discontinued without notice if the work was found to be not satisfactory. By a communication dated 1-8-2009 the Head Master intimated the petitioner that, in view of a Resolution passed by the Gram Shikshan Samiti, further work of supply of cooked food has been allotted to Mahila Bachat Gat. This communication is under challenge. 3) Affidavit-in-reply has been filed by respondent No.2. The deponent in paragraphs 4 and 8 contends : "4. The contents of para no.6 are false and incorrect. As per the Govt. resolution dated 16th May 2002 issued by Government of Maharashtra School Education Department Mantralaya Mumbai, the Mahila Sahayita Bachat Gat is entitled to get the contract to provide cooed foods. The copy of G.R. dated 16th May 2002 is annexed herewith and marked as Exhibit R-1. 8. I further say and submit that, allotment of the contract he is not fundamental right. This Hon'ble Court in similarly situated matter in Writ petition No.7843/2005 rejected such claim holding that, petitioner has no right to claim that he should be allowed to continue to do the same job. In view of the facts and circumstances writ petition may kindly be dismissed with cost." 3 Writ Petition No. 7751/2009 4) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the month of June a fresh work order is likely to be issued and at that point of time the petitioner could be considered for the job. 5) In the light of the reply filed and the fact that the petitioner does not have vested right for seeking directions to the respondents, we do not find that the petition requires consideration in exercise of extra ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In case the respondents call for applications for supplying cooked food and the petitioner is entitled, the petitioner may apply. 6) The writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- Sd/- (S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.) (NARESH H PATIL, J.) rsl