1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1758 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.1758 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.1758 OF 2007 Vikas Narayan Kamble .. Petitioner. vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents Mr.Q.M.Ashfaq for the petitioner Ms.M.P.Thakur for respondent nos.1 and 2 CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & S.J. KATHAWALLA, JJ. S.J. KATHAWALLA, JJ. S.J. KATHAWALLA, JJ. DATE: 8TH DECEMBER, 2008. DATE: 8TH DECEMBER, 2008. DATE: 8TH DECEMBER, 2008. P.C. 1. Heard. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. 2. The petitioner has invoked the extraordinary Jurisdiction of this court for seeking a writ in the nature of quashing and setting aside of the order dated 16.10.2004 passed by respondent nos.2 terminating the services of the petitioner and for a declaration that he is entitled to have acquired all permanency benefits of services from the date of appointment w.e.f.16.07.2003. 2 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he belongs to Scheduled Caste and came to be appointed in the office of Industrial Court on the post of Higher Grade Stenographer initially by order dated 16.07.03 and, thereafter, his appointment was continued from time to time. During the course of the employment, the petitioner was also required to attend election duties and his appointment was abruptly terminated by a communication dated 16.10.2004. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that thereafter he moved the then Chief Minister, Mantralaya, Government of Maharashtra, Mumbai with a request to absorb him permanently in service on the post of Stenographer (Higher Grade) and inspite of continued persuasion did not get any response and, therefore, he has filed this petition. 5. In reply to the petition, respondent no.2 has filed affidavit in reply of the then Registrar (Legal), High Court, Appellate Side. It is the stand taken by respondent no.2 that the petitioner was appointed merely on temporary basis and one of the most important 3 condition on which the petitioner was appointed was that the appointment may be terminated without giving any reason and, therefore, the impugned order cannot be questioned by the petitioner. In addition to the fact that the petitioner was appointed on temporary basis, his performance was also not satisfactory and up to the mark as per the confidential reports received from the members of the Industrial Court under whom the petitioner has worked. It is also contended that the petitioner’s appointment was continued by giving breaks as there were no regular appointment made by Maharashtra Public Service Commission on the said post, and, therefore, there is no merits in the petition. 6. Apart from the fact that the petition has been filed after substantial delay and this court can summarily dismiss the petition on the ground of delay and latches (which the petitioner has tried to explain by placing on record correspondence with the Honourable Chief Minister), we find that petitioner has no vested right to claim appointment on permanent basis for the reason that the petitioner has never passed the MPSC examination which is a must. Secondly, the petitioner’s appointment was purely on temporary basis 4 and his services came to be discontinued as per the terms and conditions of the letter of appointment. Therefore, no case is made out by the petitioner to claim the relief sought for. Petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. 7. Rule discharged. (J.N. Patel, J.) (J.N. Patel, J.) (J.N. Patel, J.) (S.J. Kathawalla, J.) (S.J. Kathawalla, J.) (S.J. Kathawalla, J.)