Om Prakash, J. - (1.) The prayer of the petitioner is that the respondents be directed to make appointment of the incumbents including him whose names appeared in the waiting list prepared along with the select list dated 23rd November, 1982.
(2.) The facts, briefly, are that the post of Probation Officer for which the petitioner claims to have been selected as him name appeared in the waiting list of the select list, dated 23-11-1982, is governed by the Probation Officer Service Rules, 1953 (for short, the Rules, 1953) framed under Article 309 of the Constitution. Rule 11 of the said Rules, 1953 provides for direct recruitment of the post of Probation Officer through the Commission. It is averred that a select list of Probation Officers was prepared by the Commission on 23rd November, 1981 and 14 candidates were included in the waiting list, name of the petitioner being in the waiting list at serial No. 18 whereas the select list was fully exhausted, the candidates who were at serial Nos. 1 to 6 filed two writ petitions before Lucknow Bench of this Court and obtained a direction in their favour that they be given appointment against the posts occupied by the ad hoc appointees who also appeared in the examination with them but failed or who were not selected by the Commission,
(3.) It is further averred by the petitioner that there are still several ad hoc appointees who were continuing as probation Officers without any right after the judgments of the Lucknow Bench and, therefore, the respondents be directed to consider his name against the post being held by the ad hoc appointees without any right and that he be appointed on one of such posts. It is contended that after selection, ad hoc appointees were reverted but again they were promoted as Probation Officer in gross violation of the decisions of the Lucknow Bench wherein it was held that after regular selection was made the ad hoc appointees who were either rejected or not selected by the Commission had no right to continue.;