JUDGMENT

Valmiki J. Mehta, J (Oral)

1. This writ petition came up for hearing in the morning when a request was made by the learned counsel for the petitioner for adjournment to file the rejoinder affidavit. The counter affidavit was filed way back in January, 2013 (i.e as many as six months back), and therefore, request for filing rejoinder was declined. The request for passover was however acceded to. On the second call, during the course of hearing I told the counsel for the petitioner that whatever is the rejoinder with him, he may give the same to the Court, however, this rejoinder has not been given to the Court. Counsel for the petitioner thereafter more or less concluded his arguments because the issue in the present case which was argued on behalf of the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed on probation, that probation period came to an end, and the petitioner therefore should be taken as having been confirmed to his appointment by being co-related to the original date, however, none of these arguments have any merit because the defence of the respondent/District & Sessions Judge, Delhi is that the issue is not of entitlement of confirmation after probation bu