1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3019 OF 2008 Anand Ashok Burande ..Petitioner. Vs. Krushi Utpanna Bazar Samiti and another ..Respondents. ..... Mr. Ashok b. Tajane for the Petitioner. None for the Respondents. .... CORAM: DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 29th April, 2008. P.C. : 1. The Petitioner was appointed on a purely temporary basis as a Cold Storage Supervisor between 1st February, 2003 and 31st January, 2005. Each of the 9 orders under which the Petitioner was appointed was for a specified term and upon the expiry of the term the appointment came to an end. The Industrial Court has noted that there was no sanctioned post during the term when the Petitioner was in service as a temporary employee. The last order of appointment was on 31st January, 2005. The post of Cold Storage Supervisor was sanctioned by the Director only on 2 30th October, 2006. Such a sanction is mandatory under Rule 100 (5) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Rules 1967 under which no new post can be created nor can an appointment be made to a post, (not being a temporary or officiating appointment for a period exceeding six months) without the previous approval of the director. In these circumstances, the Petitioner who was appointed for a temporary period had no vested right to continue and the mere completion of 240 days would not confer upon him the status of a permanent employee. The reliance which has been placed during the course of the submissions on the provisions of Rule 9 of the Service Rules applicable to the First Respondent is misconceived because Rule 9 applies to a probationary appointment. The appointment of the Petitioner was purely temporary and was not on probation. The Industrial Court has correctly appreciated the factual and legal position and is not in error in dismissing the complaint of unfair labour practices instituted by the Petitioner under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. No case for interference in the extra ordinary 3 jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution is made out. The Petition is dismissed. 2. In the event that the selection process is initiated, it will be open to the Petitioner to apply for being appointed in the regular process and his application shall be considered in accordance with law. The Industrial Court had granted an ad interim stay which was to remain in force until 30th April, 2008. In view of the dismissal of the writ petition by this Court, the stay shall stand vacated. *****