GPN-J-332-ARHCB-8_94-13,10,500-ALA4. SPL.H.C.A.S.C.D. 79e. FARAD FARAD FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. CONTINUATION SHEET NO. CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE. APPELLATE SIDE. APPELLATE SIDE. WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 8944 OF 2003 PETITION NO. 8944 OF 2003 PETITION NO. 8944 OF 2003 ---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------- ---------------- Office Notes, Office Memorada Court‘s or Judge‘s orders or directions and Orders. Registrar‘s orders. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Shri N.V.Bandiwadekar for the petitioner. Shri S.R.Nargolkar AGP for State CORAM; CORAM; CORAM; V.G. PALSHIKAR & V.G. PALSHIKAR & V.G. PALSHIKAR & SMT. SMT. SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, JJ. NISHITA MHATRE, JJ. NISHITA MHATRE, JJ. DTAED; DTAED; DTAED; 9TH FEBRUARY, 2005 9TH FEBRUARY, 2005 9TH FEBRUARY, 2005. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the orders passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal confirming the order of termination of his service. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that he was appointed on probation and he has completed the period of probation. Thereafter he cannot be removed as if he is a temporary employee and the services are no longer required. This factual ascertion on the part of the petitioner is incorrect. The order of appointment which is at page 25 of the main petition, clearly discloses that the appointment of the petitioner was on temporary basis. The petitioner has not placed on record any order by which his alleged probation ws successfully completed. In such circumstances, where the Tribunal has found that there was no stigma in the order impugned before it, we see no reason to interfere as it is a case of termination of service of a tempoary employee. Petition therefore is dismissed. ...