JUDGMENT
Mukundakam Sharma, C.J.
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 14th December, 2004 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant herein holding that the issue raised by the appellant regarding non-inclusion of the member of SC/ST or Physically Handicapped category in the Selection Committee has vitiated the selection process is without any merit. It was held that no case is made out by the appellant for interference in the exercise of writ jurisdiction.
2. The appellant herein is a physically handicapped person with 58% locomotary disability. He first appeared in the selection process held by the respondent University for being appointed as a lecturer in management in 1999. He did not qualify in the said selection.
3. In 2002 some posts were again advertised by the University and one of the said posts was reserved for physically handicapped person. The appellant submitted his application to be considered as against the aforesaid post. Selection was held but the appellant who again appeared could not qualify. Consequently, the appellant filed the aforesaid writ petition in this Court relating to the constitution of the Selection Committee as the same was contrary to the circular of the University Grants Commission as to how the Selection Committee has to be constituted and who should be members of the Selection Committee. It is claimed that the entire process is vitiated.
4. We have also heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. Counsel appearing for the appellant in support of her submission has relied upon Clause 5.0.0 of the UGC Notification which was attached with its letter dated 24th December, 1998 sent to the Vice Chancellors of all universities and Education Secretaries of all States and UTs. In the said notification it is provided that a representative of the SC/ST or Physically Handicapped person should be in the Selection Committee whenever a candidate from any of these category appears for the interview. Relying on the aforesaid provision, counsel appearing for the appellant submits that since in the selection committee which interviewed the appellant did not have any physically handicapped person, therefore, the said selection committee was not properly constituted and the entire process of selection is vitiated.
5. However, we find that the above regulation issued in 1998 was superseded by the subsequent regulation which is framed by the University which was issued in March, 2000 called the University Grants Commission (minimum qualifications required for the appointment and carrier Advancement of teachers in Universities and institutions affiliated to it) Regulations, 2000. The said UGC Regulation provides that the said Regulation would apply to every university established or incorporated by or under a Central Act, Provincial Act or a State Act, every institution including a constituent or an affiliated college recognised by the Commission in consultation with the university concerned under Clause (f) of Section 2 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 and every institution deemed to be a university under Section 3 of the said Act. The said Regulation clearly provides that the said Regulations have been issued in supersession of the earlier notifications including the notification dated 24th December, 1998. The said notification dated 24th December, 1998 is the notification on which strong reliance is placed by the counsel appearing for the appellant and to which reference is made by us herein before.
6. The 2000 Regulation lays down the manner and mode of the selection of the faculty member of the University and constituent colleges. Clause 3.00 of the aforesaid Regulation clearly lays down the manner and mode as to how the selection committee should be constituted. We have perused the said Regulation and on going through the record we are of the considered opinion that the selection committee to be constituted by the concerned college or the university for selection of a teacher even against a reserved category post is not required to have a person belonging to the handicapped category. That being the position, the argument raised before us on the basis of a superseded notification is misplaced. New regulations issued in the year 2000 are applicable. As the selection process was held in the year 2002, 1998 regulations are not applicable.
7. On considering the records, we find that the selection committee was legally constituted as prescribed under the 2000 Regulations and the grievance of the appellant in that regard is misplaced. On going through the records we also find that the appellant appeared before the said selection committee, took a chance of being selected in the said interview and did not raise any objection regarding the constitution of the selection committee at that stage or even immediately after the interview. After having learnt that he was not selected, he raised the issue regarding the supposed illegality in constitution of the Select Committee. In our considered opinion, the appellant cannot take up such a plea, which is barred under the principles of waiver and estoppel as laid down in the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases titled as G. Sarana (Dr.) v. University of Lucknow and Suneeta Aggarwal v. State of Haryana .
8. In view of the foregoing discussion, we find no merit in this appeal which is dismissed.