IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO:32519 of 1998 Between: J.Venkata Rao, S/o. Pichaiah, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Acharya N.G.Ranga Agrilcultural University, Rep.by its Registrar, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad-500 030. 2 State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. (R-2 is impleaded as per C.O. dt: 22/4/99 in WPMP.11080/98 .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.C.N.MOORTY Counsel for Respondent No.1:MR.K.SURESH REDDY The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1 University in not following the reservation for physically handicapped persons for the post of Assistant Professor in Genetics and Plant Breeding, as illegal. Heard Sri C.N.Moorthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.Suresh Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1 University. The petitioner, who is a handicapped person, applied to respondent No.1 University for the post of Assistant Professor in Genetics and Plant Breeding in pursuance of advertisement No.1/RC/97, dated 06.01.1997. He appeared for interview and failed to get selected for the said post. Later on, he filed the present writ petition with the plea that the State Government has provided for 3% reservation for the physically handicapped persons in various G.Os being issued by it from time to time. He referred to G.O.Ms.Nos.1034, 521, 148 and 65, dated 01.08.1966, 18.08.1978, 08.07.1985 and 15.02.1997 respectively. For the limited purpose of examining his claim, it is not necessary for this Court to delve into the relevancy of these G.Os in the context of employment in respondent No.1 University. It would suffice to notice that though the advertisement issued by respondent No.1 notified reservations for various categories and failed to notify any reservation for physically handicapped, the petitioner has not questioned the said advertisement. Instead, he applied for the post of Assistant Professor in Genetics and Plant Breeding and took his chance. After he failed to get selected, he filed this writ petition. The law is well settled that a person, who willingly applied for in pursuance of an advertisement and failed to get selected, is not entitled to question the validity of the notification by operation of doctrine of waiver and acquiescence. (See Suneeta Aggarwal v. State of Haryana and others[1] and Chandra Prakash Tiwari and others v. Shakuntala Shukla and others[2]) In the instant case, as the petitioner has not questioned the advertisement at an appropriate time, he waived his right, if any, to question the same by his conduct. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed without going into the merits of the contentions raised by the petitioner regarding the applicability of the reservations for physically handicapped persons in respondent No.1 University. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, interim order, dated 20.08.1999 is vacated and WPMP.No.39914 of 1998 is dismissed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 12th DECEMBER, 2008. kvni [1] (2000) 2 SCC 615 [2] (2002) 6 SCC 127