SATISH CHANDRA SRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed for a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned seniority list dated 2.1.2003 Annexure -2 to the writ petition issued by the State of U.P. communicated by means of letter dated 6.1.2003 Annexure -1 to the writ petition and also the reversion order dated 6.10.2003 Annexure -3 to the writ petition. The petitioners have also prayed for a mandamus directing that respondents should not interfere in the working as Prosecution Officer and should paid them salary accordingly.

(2.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.

(3.) IT is alleged in Paragraph 5 of the petition that the petitioners were duly -selected and appointed as Assistant Prosecution Officer in February, 1977 after selection by a duly constituted Selection Committee. By order dated 8.2.77 as many as 192 persons were appointed on adhoc basis on the post of Assistant Prosecution Officers, and by order dated 24.12.77, 51 Assistant Prosecution Officers were appointed. Thus, a total of 243 Assistant Prosecution Officers were appointed in the year 1977 -78. In the year 1979 the U.P. Regulation of Adhoc Appointment Rules 1979 came into force which was made effective from 14.5.79 and the cut of date was fixed as 1.1.77. From 27.1.82 the post of Assistant Prosecution Officer came within the purview of the U.P. Public Service Commission.