IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1335 OF 2009 Rajendra Maruti Jadhav ...Petitioner Vs. The District Civil Surgeon Satara Taluka & District Satara & Ors. ... Respondents --- Smt. B.P. Jakhade for Petitioner Shri A.P. Vanarase, AGP for Respondents ---- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED 16TH JUNE, 2009 P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and the learned Counsel for the Respondents. 2. By this petition, the Petitioner is challenging the judgment and order passed by the Industrial Court in Revision Application (ULP) No. 48 of 2003, whereby the Industrial Court was pleased to confirmed the order passed by the Labour Court, Satara in Complaint (ULP) No.9 of 1999. 3. The Petitioner herein was working as a temporary badli kamgar – Barber till 31.12.1995 in the office of the District Civil Surgeon. The Respondents did not renew his appointment. He, therefore, filed a complaint under section 28 (i) under Item No. 1,a,b,d,f of the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act, 1971. The said complaint was dismissed by the Labour Court on 15.7.2003. Against this order, the Petitioner had preferred a revision application before the Industrial Court. This revision application was also dismissed on 11.10.2004. 4. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents has invited my attention to the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 14 of 2008 in Writ Petition No. 4141 of 2006 in the case of The State of Maharashtra and Another vs.Pandurang Sitaram Jadhav. He submitted that the issue involved in this case is squarely covered by the ratio of this judgment. In the present case, it is an admitted position that the Petitioner was appointed on a temporary basis and was working on daily wages from the date of his initial appointment. The said post is not a sanctioned post and he was appointed purely on a temporary basis as a barber by the Civil Surgeon. The Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid case has made an observation that permanency cannot be confirmed of an employee until two pre-requisites are satisfied viz. (1) appointment being in conformity with the rules relating to appointment and (2) permanent sanctioned vacant posts being in existence. 5. In the present case the appointment of the Petitioner was not in conformity with the rules relating to the appointment and this post is also not sanctioned vacant post in existence. In view of the matter, in my view, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Labour Court and the Industrial Court. 6. Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. V.M. KANADE J.