JUDGMENT

K. RAMASWAMY, J.:- This writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution is a sequel to the order passed by this Court in Sat Dev Parasher, etc. etc. v. State of Haryana in Writ Petition No. 887 of 1986 and a batch of connected Special Leave Petitions, Transfer Petitions, etc. etc. in December, 1985. The State of Haryana made on different dates ad hoc appointments to the posts of Assistant District Attorney. Applications were invited. by the Haryana Public Service Commission to make recruitment to the posts of Assistant District Attorney. The ad hoe appointees filed writ petitions under Article 32 and also special leave petitions against the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. Their main contention was that they have been regularly recruited though on ad hoe basis after interview by a duly constituted Committee that they were entitled to be regularised. This Count while disposing of the cases held that the petitioners therein were appointed only on ad hoe basis till suitable candidates were available for regular appointment. The interim orders passed on different dates were vacated. It was observed that "if amongst the said petitioners any person has been appointed regularly by the Public Service Commission subsequently he shall hold the post pursuant to the order issued on the recommendation of the Public Service Commission. This order of dismissal will not affect him. The petitions are disposed of accordingly. The candidates who have been selected by the Public Service Commission shall be appointed by the State Government on regular basis and any stay order passed by this Court against their appointment is vacated. These petitions are accordingly allowed. Dr. Y. S. Chitale, learned counsel for the State, submits that if any post of the Assistant District Attorney is to be filled up within one year, candidates who are selected by the Public Service Commission but have not been appointed shall be appointed in the order of merit....." The petitioner was, admittedly, selected by the Haryana Public Service Commission, as communicated by letter dated May 7,1986, with his Roll No. 446. He stood at Serial No. 39 in the order of merit among sixty six selected candidates. In the counter-affidavit filed in the earlier group of petitions by the State of Haryana it was admitted that 39 posts were to be filled from among the selected general candidates. The petitioner having been selected on merit and assigned the 39th position was also entitled to be appointed as Assistant District Attorney. It is the petitioners case that the respondents have arbitrarily and illegally denied him his right to appointment as Assistant District Attorney. It is his case that several representations made in this regard received no consideration constraining him to approach his Court for issuance of a writ of mandamus or order or direction to the respondents to give his due appointment. In the counter-affidavit, it is admitted that the petitioner was selected by the Public Service Commission and he stood at Serial No. 39, but the posts ear marked for the general candidates were 37. Consequently, the petitioner could not be appointed. This Court seeing the specific admission made on the earlier occasion that 39 posts were earmarked for general candidates 455 called upon the respondents to explain the contradictory stand set up in the present case. A further affidavit was filed stating that averments of earmarking 39 posts for general candidates is a typographical mistake. The total number of posts notified were 57 the breakup of which is that 11 posts were reserved for Scheduled Castes, six posts were reserved for Backward Classes and three posts were reserved for NSML and the remaining 37 were to be filled up from general candidates. They regretted the typographical error committed in the earlier affidavit. It is also admitted that subsequent notification was issued by the Public Service Commission to select 27 candidates to fill up 27