(1.) The petitioner prays for the issue of a writ ''of certiorari quashing the selection of respondent No. 3 or any other person on regular basis till his services are regularised.'' A few facts may be noticed.
(2.) On October 16, 1992, the Punjab Agricultural University advertised various posts including that of Research Engineer. The petitioner was selected. Vide letter dated June 16, 1993, the petitioner was appointed as a Research Engineer ''on ad hoc basis till the joining back of its regular incumbent at the pay to be fixed according to the Rules in the scale of Rs. 3700-125-4950-150-5700.....'' It was further stipulated that ''he is liable to be reverted to his previous post at any time without any notice.'' While the petitioner was continuing to work as a Research Engineer, the University issued another advertisement in the year 1995. A copy of the extract from this advertisement has been produced as Annexure P.4 with the writ petition. In this advertisement, besides other posts, a post of Associate Professor of Agricultural Engg. (Soil and Water Engineering) was advertised. Qualifications were laid down. The petitioner and respondent No. 3 competed for this post. The third respondent was selected. After her selection, the petitioner filed the present writ petition claiming that the respondent- university should be prohibited from appointing any other person on regular basis till his services are regularised either against the post of Research Engineer or any other post of equivalent rank and status.
(3.) The respondents contest the petitioner's claim. Separate written statements have been filed. It has been inter alia pointed out that the post of Associate Professor of Agricultural Engineering (Soil and Water Engineering) had been advertised even in the year 1992 when the petitioner had only applied for the post of Research Engineer. The post against which the petitioner had been appointed was in fact a temporary vacancy which had occurred on account of the fact that the original incumbent had proceeded on deputation. Therefore, on the petitioner's selection, the appointment was made on purely ad hoc basis. Still further, the petitioner had competed for recruitment to the post of Associate Professor in the year 1995. He having not been selected, cannot claim appointment to the post for which respondent No. 3 was found to be suitable by the Selection Committee. On these premises, the respondents maintain that the claim made by the petitioner cannot be sustained.