1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.7059 OF 2009 Dr. Aparna Somnathappa Girwalkar, Age-33 years, Occu:Service as Lecturer in Anaesthesia Department, Government Medical College, Latur, R/o- Flat No.5-B, Shri Krushna Apartment, Savewadi, Latur. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, Health Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32, 2) The Dean, Government Medical College, Latur. ...RESPONDENTS. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.7170 OF 2009 Dr. Ramdas Manikrao Dahiphale, Age-30 years, Occu:Service as Lecturer in Pediatric Department, Government Medical College, Latur, R/o- P.W.D. Quarters, Near VISAVA Rest House, Opp. Ashok Hotel, Main Road, Latur. ...PETITIONER. 2 VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, Health Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32, 2) The Dean, Government Medical College, Latur. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Mr. J.G. Toshniwal Advocate with Mr. Laxman Kulkarni Advocate for Petitioners in both the Petitions. Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in both the Petitions. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND K.U. CHANDWAL, JJ. DATE : 5TH NOVEMBER, 2009. PER COURT : 1. The counsel for the Petitioners placed reliance on two Judgments i.e. Judgment in the matter of Nandkumar Suresh Mayekar vs. Union of India and others, reported in 2009 (5) Mh. L.J. Page No.296 and the Judgment in the matter of Hargurpratap Singh vs. State of Punjab and others, reported in 2008 (2) Supreme Court Case, Page No.618. We have perused the same. It was submitted that 3 the Petitioners were appointed as Lecturers in Government Medical College, Latur initially for 120 days. According to the Petitioners, the Petitioners in that capacity are serving since last 1 and 1/2 years. The grievance of the Petitioners is that the Petitioners being ad-hoc appointees, should not be replaced by another ad-hoc appointees. The learned counsel for the Petitioners are not able to point out any advertisement issued by the Government inviting applications for appointment of ad-hoc candidates. At this stage, the Petition based on apprehension, is premature. At an appropriate stage, the Petitioners may resort to appropriate remedies as available to them. No interference is called for at this stage. Writ Petition is dismissed. [K.U. CHANDIWAL, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] asb/NOV09/wp7059.09