1 W.P.No.194/11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.194 OF 2011. Babasaheb S/o Marotrao Pawar ... Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ... Respondents. ... Mr.K.B.Jadhav, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.V.D.Godbharle, Asstt.Govt. Pleader for the State. ... CORAM : NARESH H.PATIL & : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,JJ. Date : 18.01.2011. ORAL ORDER (Per S.V.Gangapurwala,J.) 1. Vide the present Writ Petition, the petitioner assails the order of termination dated 8.11.2010 and the judgment and order of the Aurangabad Bench of Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, dt.25.11.2010 passed in Original 2 W.P.No.194/11 Application No.965/2010. 2. The petitioner was appointed vide appointment order dated 13.7.2010 as labourer. By order dated 8.11.2010, the services of the petitioner were terminated on the ground that the appointment was not regular. The said appointment was illegal. The petitioner challenged the said termination order by filing Original Application before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Aurangabad Bench, Aurangabad. The Tribunal dismissed the said Original Application. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of termination is illegal inasmuch as the principles of natural justice have not been followed. For the said purpose the learned counsel relies on the judgment in the case of "Prakash Ratan Sinha Vs. State of Bihar and others" (2009) 14 SCC 690. 4. We have gone through the said judgment of the Apex Court. The Apex Court was dealing 3 W.P.No.194/11 with the case of promotion, wherein the promotion granted to the petitioner therein was cancelled. In that light of the matter, the Apex Court had made the observations regarding observance of the principles of natural justice. In the present case the appointment of petitioner as labourer was temporary. He had worked for four (4) months. The petitioner had no right to the said post. The Government had imposed ban on fresh recruitment for one year. The appointment was illegally made without following the selection process. The Respondents taking into account all these aspects had issued termination order. 5. The Tribunal has considered all the aspects and has passed reasoned order. No error has been committed by the Tribunal while passing the impugned judgment. 6. In light of the above, the petition being sans merit, is dismissed. However, there 4 W.P.No.194/11 shall be no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) (NARESH H.PATIL,J.) asp/office/wp194.11