S. S. Sodhi, J. - (1.) THE attempt here is by an adhoc employee to block the appointment of a regularly selected candidate on the plea that other adhoc employees, similary situated, had moved this Court earlier and obtained Stay Orders by virtue of which they continue in service. Reference here being t6 the interim orders passed on April 27, 1991 in Civil Writ Petition 24990 of 1991 (Rajnesh Pandey v. State of U. P. and another) and on August 2. 1991 in Civil Writ Petition 28842 of 1991 (Vipul Kumar Upadhyay v. State of U. P. and another) Annexure X & XI.
(2.) A mere interim order passed in a pending writ petition cannot be construed as a binding judicial precedent in the final hearing of the matter, as in the present ease. The appointment of the petitioner was specifically for a fixed period or until regular appointment of selected candidates, whichever is earlier. Now that a regularly selected candidate has been selected and is to be appointed, the petitioner cannot stand in the way of his appointment. There is thus no ground to grant to the petitioner the relief claimed. As regards the two writ; petitions, where by interim orders, the petitioners who are adhoc employees have blocked the appointment of regularly selected candidates, the registry is directed to place the said writ petitions, alongwith this order before the Honourable Acting Chief Justice for obtaining appropriate orders for the early tearing of the two writ petitions 24990 of 1991 and Civil Writ Petition 28842 of 1991.
(3.) THIS writ petition is with these observations hereby dismissed. 6 After this order had been passed, Counsel for the petitioner prayed that he may be permitted to have this writ petition dismissed as not pressed. Ordered accordingly. Petition dismissed.;