- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.989 OF 2008 ... Mr.R.M.Mhamane ...Petitioner v/s. Shri Dadasaheb Somdhale Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and ors. ...Respondents ... Mrs.Anita A. Agarwal for the Petitioner. Mr.V.S.Masurkar, GP for State. ... CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED: 29TH JULY, 2008 P.C.: 1. By this petition the petitioner challenges the - 2 - appointment of the Respondent No.3 to the post of teacher. The appointment has been made after duly advertising the post. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner stated that the ground of challenge is that the Respondent No.3 has been appointed because he is related to the President. An allegation to that effect has been made in paragraph 7 of the petition, but what is interesting is that the exact relationship between the President and the Respondent No.3 is not spelt out. Even the President has not been joined at a party to the petition. So far as the challenge to the appointment of the Respondent No.3 is concerned, the petition has no substance. 2. Then the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is working in some post and the Respondents are trying to abolish that post and therefore, according to the learned Counsel, the Respondents should not be permitted to abolish the post presently occupied by the Petitioner. 3. Perusal of the prayer clauses shows that there is no prayer made to that effect. In any case, the - 3 - service of the Petitioner in which post he is working has not yet been terminated. As and when that service is terminated, the Petitioner would be free to challenge the same in accordance with law. We see no substance in the petition. It is rejected. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)