(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 417 OF 2008 Raosaheb Mango Patil, Age : 38 years, Occupation : Service, R/o. Utkarshnagar, Gunjan Building, Behind Hotel Samrat, Amalner, Taluka : Amalner, District : Jalgaon. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon, District : Jalgaon. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. A.D. Shinde, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. D.R. Korde, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent no.1. Mr. P.B. Patil, Advocate, for respondent no.2. ........................ (2) CORAM : A.P. DESHPANDE & N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 5TH JANUARY 2010 COURT'S ORDER (Per A.P. Deshpande, J.) : 1. By the present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 29th November 2007, passed by the respondent no.2 i.e. Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon, thereby canceling the appointment of the petitioner as Subject Expert on the ground of pendency of Writ Petition No. 5429/2007 filed by the petitioner as President of Sanghatana. 2. The petitioner is holding the post of Primary School Teacher substantively in the employment of Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon. The Government had introduced a scheme by name "Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan" and took a decision to appoint Subject Experts under the said scheme. The petitioner, who was working as a Primary School Teacher, came to be so appointed vide order of appointment dated 20th October 2007, as Subject Expert. The appointment order itself makes it clear that the post wherein the petitioner is appointed, is temporary and ad hoc and the petitioner would continue to receive the salary in the same scale of pay. 3. Perusal of the appointment order reveals that the petitioner continues to hold his substantive post of Primary School Teacher and the appointment in the post of Subject Expert is by way of an ad hoc arrangement made temporarily. It is thus obvious that the petitioner cannot claim any right to hold said post of Subject Expert. Be that as it may, the appointment of the petitioner came to be terminated by the (3) Chief Executive Officer of Zilla Parishad, vide communication dated 29th November 2007. The only reason spelt out in the order of termination is pendency of Writ Petition No. 5429/2007 instituted by the present petitioner as President of Maharashtra Rajya Padvidhar, Prathamik Va Kendra Pramukha Sabha (an Association of Teahcers) and no other reason is spelt out. 4. We are informed at the Bar, by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. A.D. Shinde, that the Writ Petition bearing No. 5429/2007 has been dismissed as infructuous vide order dated 17th December 2008. We are also informed that consequent upon passing of an ad interim order dated 6th February 2008, the respondents are directed to maintain status quo, as a result of which the petitioner continues to hold the post of Subject Expert. 5. We see no reason to keep the petition pending, more so, in view of the disposal of Writ Petition No. 5429/2007. 6. In the result, the present Writ Petition is dismissed. Needless to mention, that the order of status quo also stands vacated. The respondent no.2 shall be at liberty to take appropriate decision in regard to continuance, or otherwise, of the petitioner in the post of Subject Expert, having regard to the administrative exigency. ( N.D. DESHPANDE ) ( A.P. DESHPANDE ) JUDGE JUDGE bgp/wp417