JUDGMENT Om Prakash, J. - 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. 4. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 2. It is admitted that the candidates, appearing at serial Nos. 1 to 6 in the waiting list of the select list of 1982 were given appointment pursuant to the decisions of the Lucknow Bench. 4. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 2. It is admitted that the candidates, appearing at serial Nos. 1 to 6 in the waiting list of the select list of 1982 were given appointment pursuant to the decisions of the Lucknow Bench. It is admitted in para 26 of the counter affidavit that the petitioner's name appears at serial No. 13 of the waiting list. It is also averred that three ad hoc appointees whose appointment was to continue upto 29-2-1984, had obtained stay order from the Lucknow Bench and, therefore they are continuing in service. It is stated in the supplementary counter affidavit that there are 14 vacancies of the Probation Officer which have already been referred to the Commission for making selection and that the vacancies having already been referred to the Commission, the question of accommodating the petitioner in any vacancy does not arise. 5. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder affidavit in para 11 of which it is stated that several persons are still continuing on ad hoc basis and, therefore, in view of the decisions of the Lucknow Bench, the petitioner does have a right to be considered and appointed against such post. 6. Writ petition No. 3483 of 1983 was filed by a candidate whose name appeared at serial No. 6 by the petitioner that are still several in the aforesaid waiting list which was decided by the Lucknow Bench of this Court by the order dated 20-1-1984, Annexure-3 to the writ petition. The contention of the petitioner in that case was that when the ad hoc appointees took up the examination with them but failed they had no right to continue any more. In short, the averment of that petitioner was that when the merit of the ad hoc appointees vis-a-vis the persons who were selected and whose names appeared in the select list and waiting list were settled, the ad hoc appointees who were either rejected or not selected by the Commission had no right to continue. In short, the averment of that petitioner was that when the merit of the ad hoc appointees vis-a-vis the persons who were selected and whose names appeared in the select list and waiting list were settled, the ad hoc appointees who were either rejected or not selected by the Commission had no right to continue. A Division Beach of this Court (Lucknow Bench) held : "Once the candidature of these persons was considered and rejected by the Commission opposite parties were not justified in promoting them to the post of Probation Officer even in ad hoc capacity, in ignorance of the claim of the petitioner." The Bench continued to say in the same paragraph : " ............ Once respective merits of the candidates including the petitioner and persons mentioned above are considered by the Commission and from amongst them the petitioner alone was selected, it was not open to the opposite parties to promote rejected candidates in place of selected candidates to the post of Probation Officer on the ground that rejected candidates were senior." Then came the writ petition 4444 of 1984 filed by the candidates whose names appeared at serial Nos. 1 to 5 of the waiting list, before the Lucknow Bench. Following the decision rendered in the earlier Writ Petition No. 3483 of 1983, Annexure-3 to the writ petition, a Division Bench of this Court (Lucknow Bench) again directed the respondents to consider the cases of the petitioners and appoint them against the posts held by the ad hoc appointees who were either rejected or not selected by the Commission. 7. The instant case is also fully covered by the decision dated 20-1-1984 Annexure-3 to the writ petition. When Lucknow Bench clearly held that the ad hoc appointees who were either rejected or not selected by the Commission, had no right to continue on the post of the Probation Officer, the respondents ought to have removed them at once and against those vacancies the name of the candidates appearing in the waiting list should have been considered. In para 11 of the rejoinder affidavit, the petitioner has clearly stated that several ad hoc appointees who were either rejected or not selected by the Commission are still continuing as Probation Officer and the respondents have unlawfully ignored the claim of the petitioner and other candidates whose names are included in the waiting list. 8. In para 11 of the rejoinder affidavit, the petitioner has clearly stated that several ad hoc appointees who were either rejected or not selected by the Commission are still continuing as Probation Officer and the respondents have unlawfully ignored the claim of the petitioner and other candidates whose names are included in the waiting list. 8. It is urged by the learned Standing Counsel that name of the petitioner cannot be considered at this stage as all the 24 vacancies have been referred to the Commission. The case of the petitioner is simple that like the candidates who stood at serial Nos. 1 to 6 of the waiting list and who were given appointments pursuant to the decisions of the Lucknow Bench, his name be also considered against the post on which the ad hoc appointees who were either rejected or not selected in 1982 by the Commission, are still continuing. If the ad hoc appointees who were either rejected or not selected by the Commission in the Examination 1983 are still continuing, then the petitioner and those who stood at serial Nos. 1 to 6 of the waiting list who were appointed will be similarly situated and the petitioner cannot be discriminated against simply on account of the fortuitous circumstance that his case was not immediately decided in the light of the Lucknow Bench decision or that he did not join with other petitioners before Lucknow Bench. The petitioner does not seek his appointment against the vacancies which have been notified to the Commission but he wants his appointment against ad hoc appointees who were either rejected or not selected by the Commission in 1982 or who were promoted after 1982 examination in utter disregard of the waiting list. The petitioner is, therefore, entitled to the same direction which was given by the Lucknow Bench in the judgment dated 20-1-1984, Annexure-3 to the writ petition in the in the case of the candidate who appeared at serial No. 6 in the waiting list. 9. The writ petition is, therefore, disposed of finally directing the respondents to immediately consider the petitioner for appointment on the post of the Probation Officer against the post, if any, occupied by the ad hoc appointee who was either rejected or not selected with the petitioner in 1982 examination. 9. The writ petition is, therefore, disposed of finally directing the respondents to immediately consider the petitioner for appointment on the post of the Probation Officer against the post, if any, occupied by the ad hoc appointee who was either rejected or not selected with the petitioner in 1982 examination. It is made clear that this order governs not merely the petitioner but also the persons above him in the waiting list who should equally be offer against such posts and if they are willing to accept the offer then the petitioner and the candidates above him in the waiting list be appointed according to their respective merit in the waiting list. No order as to costs.