1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 1050/2008 (Liyakatkhan Budhankhan VERSUS Municipal Council, Malkapur & others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Shri R.L. Khapre, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Parihar, Assistant Government Pleader for the R2, 3 & 4. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : OCTOBER 22, 2008. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the Regional Director of Municipal Administration on 05.06.2006 in the revisional jurisdiction under Section 318 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965, by which regularisation to the services of the respondent no.5 was granted with effect from 11.08.1995. The petitioner further seeks to quash and set aside all actions initiated by the respondent no.1 Municipal Council in pursuance of a show cause notice dated 20.02.2008. It is the case of the petitioner that the Regional Director, Municipal Administration had misconstrued the decision rendered by the High Court 2 in Writ Petition No.1798/1996 so as to grant regularisation to the respondent no.5 with effect from 11.08.1995. The petitioner was not a party to the said writ petition. According to the petitioner, the respondent no.5 misled the High Court by not pointing out that he was not appointed in the year 1995 by following the due procedure and was temporarily appointed for a period of six months. The petitioner further impugned the order/show cause notice dated 20.02.2008, by which the petitioner was asked to show cause within ten days as to why promotion should not be given to respondent no.5 in view of the representation made by respondent no.5. It is necessary to consider that in the order/ show cause notice dated 20.02.2008, the petitioner was informed that he was not discharging his duties as Headmaster as per Rules. He was also informed about the representation made by the respondent no.5 that the respondent no.5 was senior to the petitioner and the petitioner was asked to show cause within a period of ten days as to why promotion should not be given to respondent no.5. 3 The petitioner has not answered the order/ show cause notice dated 20.02.2008 and has directly filed this petition challenging the said order as also the order passed by the Regional Director, Municipal Administration dated 05.06.2006 on the ground that the said authority has misconstrued the order passed by the High Court in Writ Petition No.1798/1996. The petition is not only premature but, is also misconceived. The petitioner ought to have answered the show cause notice/order dated 20.02.2008. The writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE