JUDGMENT - PATIL NARESH H., J.:---The petitioner's case as unfolded from his pleadings is summarised in brief, as under : The petitioner completed three years diploma in Civil Engineering and thereafter, he got his name registered in the Employment Exchange as he was in search of employment. He was interviewed by the officer of the Municipal Council, Kalamnuri and was selected as overseer for assisting the Junior Engineer. He was accordingly, appointed in January, 1990 and he joined his duties as Overseer. The petitioner contends that as per the entrustment of work allotted to him from time to time, by the Municipal Council as well as by the then Engineer Mr. N.R. Pradhan, he discharged his duties. Some times, the petitioner was given independent work and he discharged his duties to the satisfaction of the authorities. In the month of May, 1991, the Municipal Engineer Mr. N.R. Pradhan has proceeded on sick leave from 7th May, 1991. The Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Kalamnuri, by his order dated 27-5-1991 had directed the petitioner to supervise and look after the work of various types of developments undertaken by the Municipal Council. The petitioner was made aware that during the period of sick leave of Mr. Pradhan, he was to assist and look after the development work undertaken by the Municipal Council. At point of time, the Municipal Council, being satisfied with the discharge of duties sincerely and honestly rendered by the petitioner, had decided to appoint the petitioner in place of Mr. Pradhan since he did not resume his duties due to his ill health. The petitioner was discharging his duties of supervision and getting the measurements done for preparation of bills in the leave period of Mr. Pradhan. The Municipal Council, according to the petitioner, had by a resolution passed on 25-5-1991 decided to appoint an engineer in place of Mr. Pradhan, who was not in a position to resume his duties. The petitioner's grievance is that some how he could not pull on well with the Chief Officer of the Municipal Council who wanted to employ some person of his choice in place of the petitioner. The then Chief Officer, though represented several times by the petitioner, did not disburse the salary for the period in which the petitioner had discharged his duties. The then Chief Officer, though represented several times by the petitioner, did not disburse the salary for the period in which the petitioner had discharged his duties. The petitioner sensed his termination and represented to the President of the Municipal Council not to terminate his services without getting approval from the general body of the Municipal Council. In spite of the representation, the Chief Officer had issued a show cause notice to the petitioner dated 16-7-1991 intimating the petitioner that in view of the resolution passed by the Standing Committee dated 2-7-1991, his services are not required and he would be terminated as there was no work available for the petitioner. The petitioner received the said show cause notice dated 27th July, 1991 and he submitted his reply on 31st July, 1991. The petitioner's contention is that he was not granted opportunity of hearing on 2-7-1991. On 2-7-1991 a resolution was passed by the Standing Committee of the Municipal Council bearing Resolution No. 244 to terminate the services of the petitioner as there was no work available for him. Accordingly, by an order dated 3-8-1991 the Chief Officer terminated the services of the petitioner who, according to the Chief Officer, was working as daily wager. Being dissatisfied with the order of termination passed by the Chief Officer on 3-8-1991, the petitioner had preferred to file this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. The respondent-Municipal Council had resisted the claim of the petitioner by filing affidavit-in-reply through the Chief Officer. The case of the Municipal Council is that the Junior Engineer of the Municipal Council Mr. Pradhan by letter dated 4-1-1990 intimated to the Municipal Council that in view of the work load, he required an Assistant to assist him. As Mr. Pradhan was to go on leave, the services of the petitioner were utilised as he had passed his civil engineering diploma course in the month of May, 1990. The contention of the petitioner that he worked in a clear vacancy in the Municipal Council was denied. It is clarified that there was no post sanctioned by the State of Maharashtra, in which the petitioner claims to have worked. As Mr. Pradhan was not likely to resume his duties shortly, it was resolved that the Government of Maharashtra be requested to depute some other Junior Engineer in his place. It is clarified that there was no post sanctioned by the State of Maharashtra, in which the petitioner claims to have worked. As Mr. Pradhan was not likely to resume his duties shortly, it was resolved that the Government of Maharashtra be requested to depute some other Junior Engineer in his place. The contention of the petitioner that the Chief Officer was interested in some other person was denied. The petitioner had worked during the leave period of Mr. Pradhan and as such, he had no right to the post. 3. Shri N.N. Shinde, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted before us that the petitioner was working with the Municipal Council since January, 1990 and worked as Overseer and/or Assistant to Junior Engineer of the Municipal Council during the leave period of Mr. Pradhan. At times he had discharged the duties independently in absence of Mr. Pradhan. His work was satisfactory and record of services was unblemish. The Chief Officer of the Municipal Council was interested in some other person to be appointed in place of the petitioner and due to this reason, the petitioner was meted out with unfair and unreasonable treatment at the hands of the Chief Officer. In fact, the Municipal Council was desirous of engaging services of the petitioner as chances of resumption of duties by the then Engineer Mr. Pradhan were bleak. Shri Shinde further contended that the added respondents Nos. 5 and 6, though were employed by the Municipal Council, were junior to the petitioner. After termination of services of the petitioner, the respondents Nos. 5 and 6 were still retained in service. This, in his submission, demonstrates that the juniors to the petitioner in service, were retained by the Municipal Council. In this view of the matter, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner prayed for quashing and setting aside the impugned order of termination which was passed by the Chief Officer of the Municipal Council in utter disregard to the principles of the natural justice. 4. Shri R.S. Deshmukh, learned Counsel appearing for the Municipal Council submitted that the petitioner has no right to the said post. The petitioner neither worked as an employee who was regularly selected by following the procedure enunciated in the Service Rules nor the petitioner was ever promised that he would be continued in the services in place of Mr. Pradhan. Shri R.S. Deshmukh, learned Counsel appearing for the Municipal Council submitted that the petitioner has no right to the said post. The petitioner neither worked as an employee who was regularly selected by following the procedure enunciated in the Service Rules nor the petitioner was ever promised that he would be continued in the services in place of Mr. Pradhan. The services of the petitioner were engaged by the Municipal Council as Mr. Pradhan was to proceed on sick leave. Initially, the petitioner's services were engaged for the purposes of measurement as it was represented to the Chief Officer of the Municipal Council that the works of preparation of bills and estimates were getting delayed. In view of the request made by the Engineer to the Municipal Council on 4-1-1990, the petitioner was allowed to work with the Municipal Council. In his submission, Mr. Pradhan had proceeded on leave from 7-5-1991. By communication dated 6-4-1991, Mr. Pradhan intimated to the Chief Officer of the Municipal Council that no work was available for the petitioner and hence, his service were not required. Accordingly, the issue was discussed in the meeting of the Standing Committee of the Municipal Council and it was unanimously resolved to terminate the services of the petitioner. The petitioner's case cannot be compared with the added respondents Nos. 5 and 6. 5. We have perused the pleadings of the parties. After adding the respondents Nos. 5 and 6, the petition was dismissed for want of prosecution against respondent No. 6. Civil Application No. 5757/2002 was filed on 27-2-2002 for setting aside the said dismissal order passed by the Registrar. No orders seems to have been passed on the said civil application. The petitioner had filed one more Civil Application No. 320/1993 wherein he had prayed for calling records of some of the appointments made by the Municipal Council and for quashing the said orders of appointments. By way of interim relief, the petitioner had prayed for an order of reinstatement and continuance in the post of Junior Engineer in the Municipal Council by giving retrospective effect. The said application was dated 19-10-1992. No effective orders were passed in the said civil application. Both the civil applications are still pending. 6. By way of interim relief, the petitioner had prayed for an order of reinstatement and continuance in the post of Junior Engineer in the Municipal Council by giving retrospective effect. The said application was dated 19-10-1992. No effective orders were passed in the said civil application. Both the civil applications are still pending. 6. Turning to the merits of the case, we have noticed that the petitioner failed to disclose before this Court as to how he was employed in the month of January, 1990 by the Municipal Council. The nature of services discharged by him since January, 1990 with the Municipal Council are not properly disclosed. The petitioner has emphatically placed reliance on his serving as overseer or assistant to the Junior Engineer Mr. Pradhan who was working with the Municipal Council. By a communication dated 4-1-1990 the office of the Engineer of Municipal Council desired services of one person for preparation of estimates and for getting bills prepared. The Municipal Engineer Mr. Pradhan communicated by letter dated 16-4-1991 to the Chief Officer that there was no work available to be allotted to the petitioner. The services of the petitioner, therefore, were not needed and hence, he requested for termination of petitioner's services. The Engineer further intimated to the Chief Officer that he would certify the attendance of the petitioner upto 20th April, 1991 only. Accordingly, the issue was raised before the Standing Committee, it was discussed and unanimously, which was resolved to terminate the services of the petitioner as no work was available for him. 7. As the petitioner was not working in a clear vacant post, he cannot claim regularisation of his services or continuance in the said services in view of the fact that there was no work available to be allotted to the petitioner. The services of the petitioner were utilised purely on ad hoc basis and that also for a short duration. The petitioner's services were utilised by the Engineer of the Municipal Council for preparation of estimates, as the work of preparation of bills was being delayed. We are not in agreement with the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that in the back drop of facts and circumstances of this case, the termination of the petitioner was illegal. 8. The respondents Nos. We are not in agreement with the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that in the back drop of facts and circumstances of this case, the termination of the petitioner was illegal. 8. The respondents Nos. 5 and 6 were added to the petition to demonstrate that juniors to the petitioner in service were retained after termination of the petitioner. This action will not have any bearing on the facts of the case wherein the petitioner himself failed to demonstrate the method and manner of his initial employment with the Municipal Council. There being no post, clear and vacant, on which he claims to have discharged his duties, the petitioner's claim deserves to be discarded. 9. Shri Shinde, the learned Counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of (Satyendra Nath Bajpai v. Inspector General of Registration, Uttar Pradesh and another)1, A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 674. This was a case wherein the appellant was appointed as Registration Clerk on daily wage basis by an order dated 14th February, 1985. He worked from February 14, 1985 to March 31, 1990. His services were not availed thereafter. The appellant filed a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court wherein he claimed that he had been shown at Sr. No. 1 in the approved list of candidates issued by the District Registrar, District Hardoi, and the service of Pradyumna Kumar and Maghad Prasad whose names were shown at Serial Nos. 5 and 14 respectively in the said list were regularised but the services of appellant were not regularised. While considering the petition of the appellant, the High Court had decided the said petition along with special appeals and writ petitions of other Registration Clerks appointed on daily wage basis and by a common judgment dated 8th February, 1995 the writ petition of the appellant was dismissed. In the facts of the said case, the Honourable Supreme Court allowed the appeal and remitted the matter back to the High Court for consideration on merits. On facts, the judgment cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in the case of Satyendra Nath Bajpai (supra), does not strengthen the case of the petitioner. 10. In the facts of the said case, the Honourable Supreme Court allowed the appeal and remitted the matter back to the High Court for consideration on merits. On facts, the judgment cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in the case of Satyendra Nath Bajpai (supra), does not strengthen the case of the petitioner. 10. The petitioner's case does not disclose as to whether he was a daily wage earner since January, 1990 with the Municipal Council, or his name occurs in the approved list maintained by the Municipal Council of such employees. 11. In view of the aforementioned reasons, we find that the petitioner had no right to the post. He worked with the Municipal Council as a daily wager for a brief period as assistance of one person was required by the office of the Junior Engineer, Municipal Council for preparation of estimates and for taking measurements. After the work was accomplished, on the communication of the Junior Engineer of the Municipal Council made to the Chief Officer, the Standing Committee of the Municipal Council resolved to do away with the services of the petitioner. We do not find any infirmity in the order of termination. The petitioner was issued a show cause notice by the Municipal Council on 16-7-1991, who had replied the said notice by communication dated 30-7-1991 addressed to the Chief Officer of the Municipal Council. We do not find violation of the principles of natural justice in this case in terminating services of the petitioner. 12. Resultantly, the petition fails and it is accordingly, dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. Petition dismissed. -----