(dissenting). I respectfully dissent and vote to reverse and grant the petition for the reasons stated in the dissenting memorandum by Presiding Justice A. Franklin Mahoney at the Appellate Division (132 AD2d 905, 907). I note especially, however, my concurrence in that part of the majority’s memorandum questioning what I would characterize as *984the evasive misconduct of the Civil Service Commission’s own personnel management policy towards its employee in this case — an unacceptable irony inflicted by the very agency charged with administering civil service protections Statewide.

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone and Hancock, Jr., concur; Judge Bellacosa dissents and votes to reverse in another memorandum.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, for the reasons stated in the court’s memorandum (132 AD2d 905). We do not condone the practice of the Department of Civil Service, itself charged with State-wide administration of the statutes at issue here, of filling "temporarily vacant” positions on its own staff on a provisional basis, when it concededly has no intention of ordering the examination unambiguously mandated by Civil Service Law §65 (2). The Department’s questionable practice cannot, however, result in a permanent appointment for petitioner when there is no basis in law for converting his provisional appointment to a permanent one.