B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.

1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner who started working against a clear permanent post from 4.7.1986 seeks quashing of order dated 1.7.2002 delivered by Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 231/01.

3. Mr. A. Deshpande, learned Advocate for petitioner, submits that G.R. dated 19.9.1975 was not applicable in case of petitioner and has been erroneously relied upon by respondents and accepted by Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal.

4. Ms. A.R. Kulkarni, learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 to 3, has taken us through order of Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, particularly paragraph no.3 and also through G.R. dated 19.9.1975. She submits that it gives benefit to employee for the purposes of computing his qualifying service.

5. Facts are not in dispute. Petitioner joined services as Craft Instructor initially on 24.1.1985 for a period of six months against a temporary vacancy as holder of that post Shri Patil was deputed for training. After this first appointment, again he got another appointment on 30.7.1985 as Turner Instructor as stopgap arrangement for a period of 11 months. The vacancy was not permanent. It is ther