D.P. Gupta, J.
1. The petitioner holds a degree of Master of Science (Botany) and he also has a doctorate in Science to his credit. He was holding the post of Lecturer in Botany in the University of Udaipur (hereinafter to be referred to as the University'). The University advertised the post of Reader in the Department of Botany by the Advertisement No. 10/71, dated September 20, 1971. The petitioner as well as the respondent No. 3 Shri L.N. Vyas, who was also then working as a Lecturer in the Department of Botany in the University, appeared before the Selection Committee constituted for the purpose of selecting a suitable candidate for the post of Reader in Botany. The respondent No. 3 was selected for the aforesaid post by the Selection Committee, while the petitioner was not selected. Consequently, the respondent No. 3 was appointed as Reader in Botany in the University on the basis of the recommendation of the Selection Committee. The petitioner, by means of this writ petition, seeks to challenge the appointment of respondent No. 3 as Reader in Botany in the University as a result of the aforesaid selection.
2. The only ground on which the selection of the respondent No. 3 has been challenged by the petitioner is that the Selection Committee was not properly constituted inasmuch as the respondent No. 2 Dr. H.D. Kumar, according to the petitioner, was not legally appointment as Professor in the Department of Botany in the University and as such he was not competent to take part in the proceedings of the Selection Committee as a member thereof. The Selection Committee which was constituted for the purpose of making selection of a suitable candidate for the post of Reader in Botany consisted of the Vice-Chancellor of the University and the respondent No. 2 Dr. H.D. Kumar, in his capacity as Professor and Head of the Department of Botany and Dr. R.N. Singh as an expert. According to the petitioner, the appointment of Dr. H.D. Kumar as Professor and Head of the Department of Botany was not made in accordance with law and it is on this ground alone that the constitution of the Selection Committee as well as the recommendation made by it, in respect of appointment on the post of Reader in Bot my has been challenged by the petitioner.
3. I, however, do not consider it necessary in the present case to go into the merits of the question relating to the legality of the appointment of Dr. H.D. Kumar as Professor of Botany in the University because it is the admitted case of the petitioner that Dr. H.D. Kumar was appointed as Professor of Botany by the resolution of the Executive Committee of the University dated March 15, 1966. The selection for the post of Reader in Botany, in which Dr. H.D. Kumar took part as a member of the Selection Committee and at which the respondent No. 3 was selected while the petitioner was rejected, took place on November 12, 1971. It is not denied that the petitioner knew all the relevant facts relating to the appointment of Dr. H.D. Kumar as Professor of Botany in the University at the time when he appeared for interview before the Selection Committee on November 12, 1971. However, the petitioner did not, either before appearing for interview for the post of Reader raise any objection before the Selection Committee, or at the time of the said interview raise even his little finger against the constitution of the Selection Committee. He voluntarily appeared before the Selection Committee of which Dr. H.D. Kumar was a member and he also took a chance of having a favaurable recommendation from the said Selection Committee. Now, after having taken a chance of being selected, the petitioner cannot turn round and question the constitution of the Committee when it was found by him that he was not selected. In G. Sarana v. Lucknow University : (1977)ILLJ68SC , in more or less similar circumstances their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that the failure of the candidate to take an objection at an earlier stage, either before or at the time of selection, created an effective bar of waiver against the candidate. Their Lordships quoted with approval the following passage from their decision in Manaklal v. Dr. Prem Chand : 1SCR575 .
It seems clear that the appellant wanted to take a chance to secure a favourable report from the tribunal which was constituted & when he found that he was confronted with an unfavourable report, he adopted the device of raising the present technical point.
4. As the petitioner did not raise any objection at all to Dr. H.D. Kumar taking part in the proceedings as a member of the Selection' Committee constituted for the post of Reader in Botany, either before or at the time of interview by the Selection Committee, in my opinion, he is debarred from raising this objection about the legality of the appointment of Dr. H.D. Kumar as Professor of Botany in this writ petition. The petitioner is disentitled by his aforesaid conduct from raising the said plea before this Court in the present writ petition.
5. For the fore-going reasons, I hold that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in this writ petition on account of his conduct. In these circumstances, the write petition is dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs.