D. P. Wadhwa ( 1 ) THE petitioner who was working as Chemistgrade I was appointed as Chief Chemist on ad-hoc basis by office orderdated 16/06/1989. He was told by that order that the appointment wasfor a period upto 31/03/1990 or till such time the post was filled up onregular basis whichever was earlier. Petitioner is still continuing in the postof Chief Chemist though on ad-hoc basis. He has filed this petition thatsince he has been working on this post of Chief Chemist on ad-hoc basiscontinuously since then and when the normal period of probation was onlytwo years he should be regularised on this post and respondent be restrainedfrom appointing anyone else to the post of Chief Chemist. This petitionwas filed on 22 October 1^92 and by order dated 6/11/1992 a restraint was put on the reversion of the petitioner from his present post. ( 2 ) IN answer to show cause notice on the writ petition the respondent has submitted its reply. An application under Order I, Rule 10 andsection 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure has also been filed bymr. Tripurari Sharma who says he has since been selected to the post ofchief Chemist and wanted to be impleaded as a respondent as the stay wasoperating against his interest. There ars statutory rules for appointment tothe post of the Chief Chemist. Method of recruitment is by promotiontransfer on deputation failing which by direct recruitment. In the case ofrecruitment by promotion/deputation/transfer it is done from the officerswider the Central/state Govt. /public Sector Undertaking of Electricityboards holding analogous posts or officers with 2/3 years regular service inthe scale prescribed or equivalent respectively and possessing qualificationsand experience prescribed for direct recruits. The departmental Seniorchemist with five years regular service in the grade is also to be consideredand if selected for appointment to the post, it was to be treated as havingbeen filled by promotion. However selection on each occasion shall bemade in consultation with the U. P. S. C/ There is no dispute that both thepetitioner and Mr. Tripurari Sharma are eligible for appointment to the postof Chief Chemist. Regulations 5 and 12 on which some arguments havebeen addressed are as under :- "5. Whether selection post N. A. or non-selection post. 12. If a DPC exists, what is N. A. "its composition. Tripurari Sharma are eligible for appointment to the postof Chief Chemist. Regulations 5 and 12 on which some arguments havebeen addressed are as under :- "5. Whether selection post N. A. or non-selection post. 12. If a DPC exists, what is N. A. "its composition. ( 3 ) AN advertisement was put in the newspaper by the respondentinviting applications on transfer/deputation basis as per the recruitment rules. This matter was referred to the U. P. S. C. A letter dated 31/08/1992was addreised to the petitioner to appear before the U. P. S. C. on 18/09/1992 and it was pointed out that the U. P. S. C. had desired to holdpersonal talk with the candidates on that date. A. C. Rs. of the candidateswere also sent to the U. P. S. C. The petitioner was not selected to the postof Chief Chemist and he has. therefore, to relinquish the charge of theis post. ( 4 ) PETITIONER has contended that he was appointed to the post ofchief Chemist by regular D. P. C. and it was neither the non-selection norselection post. He said when he appeared before the U. P. S. C. only onequestion was asked and there was no regular interview. We are unable toagree with these submissions. Respondent has stated that steps were beingtaken to fill up the post of Chief Chemist as per recruitment regulations andnormally the U. P. S. C. takes time to select the candidates. We have seenabove, under regulation 12 no D. P. C. is to be constituted and it was submitted by the respondent that on internal departmental consultation the petitioner was appointed to the post of Chief Chemist purely on ad-hoc basis. He has no right to hold on this post against this statutory regulation. Itwas also pointed out that some vigilance case was also pending against thepetitioner. But we are not concerned with that. The respondent says thatafter perusal of particulars of the eligible officer and experience along withcharacter rolls, bio-data of eligible officers and holding personal talks withthe candidates, the U. P. S. C. recommended another departmental candidatefor appointment to the post of Chief Chemist in D. E. S. U. We, therefore donot find any merit in this petition. It is dismissed.