-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8024 OF 2009 Ramesh Madhukar Pawar ... Petitioner versus Divisional Social Welfare Officer and others ... Respondents Mr. Surel S. Shah for the petitioner. Smt. S.S. Bhende, AGP, for respondent Nos. 1 and 4. Mr. Ashok B. Tajane for respondent No.3. CORAM: P.B. MAJMUDAR & R.M. SAVANT, JJ. DATE: JUNE 08, 2010. P.C. The petitioner was appointed as a Clerk with respondent No.2- Society in the vacancy of one Anil Mahadev Wale, respondent No.3 herein. The management had terminated the services of respondent No.3 and in the appointment letter which was issued to the petitioner, it is clearly mentioned that his appointment is subject to resumption of duty by respondent No.3. The petitioner was thereafter continued in service on the same terms and conditions. In the meanwhile, respondent No.3 challenged the termination order before the Divisional Social Welfare Officer, respondent No.1 herein. The said authority found that the termination of respondent No.3 was illegal and accordingly passed an order of reinstatement with consequential benefits. The said order was passed by the said authority on 12th May, 2009. -2- 2. The petitioner has challenged the said order on the ground that in case the third respondent resumes his duty, petitioner who is appointed in his place will have to go home and his services will be terminated. It is required to be noted that respondent No.3 immediately raised the dispute in the year 2001 in connection with the termination order passed against him. Ultimately the proceedings took some time and by the impugned order dated 12th May, 2009, respondent No.1 passed an order of reinstatement in favour of respondent No.3. Respondent No.2 has not challenged the said order of reinstatement passed by respondent No.1. Apart from the aforesaid aspect, it is required to be considered that the petitioner’s appointment was purely temporary and it is clearly mentioned in the appointment order that his appointment order is subject to resumption of duty by respondent No.3. The petitioner has accepted such order. Since respondent No.3 has succeeded before the competent authority and has been re-instated in service, petitioner cannot make any grievance in this behalf. In our view, respondent No.1 has given appropriate reasons in passing the impugned order. We, therefore, do not find any substance in the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly rejected. P. B. MAJMUDAR, J. R.M. SAVANT, J.