THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7830 of 2010 Dated : 16.04.2010 Between : Dr.K.Chandrasekhar Rao ….. Petitioner a n d The Vice Chancellor & others ….. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7830 of 2010 ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the selection of the third respondent to the post of Assistant Professor (Telugu) pursuant to notification Nos.1/2009 and 2/2009 dated 17.02.2009 and 03.07.2009 respectively issued by the second respondent-University. The petitioner has responded to the impugned notifications and applied for the post of Assistant Professor (Telugu). In this writ petition, the petitioner questions the selection of third respondent mainly on two grounds. Firstly, the applicants were not short listed and all the applicants numbering about 80 were called for interview by the selection committee. Another ground taken by the petitioner is that the notifications issued by the respondent are vague and they do not disclose the details of selection procedure to be followed by the University. Petitioner claims that he is a meritorious candidate than the third respondent. As such, the selection of the third respondent to the post of Assistant Professor (Telugu) is illegal and arbitrary. It is to be seen that sometimes the candidates will be short listed so as to reduce the number of applicants to simplify the selection process. Merely because the applicants were not short listed and all the applicants were called for interview and given equal opportunity, the same cannot be a ground to question the selection itself. Another ground taken by the petitioner that notifications are vague also cannot be accepted. In notification detailed selection procedure, which has to be followed by the selection committee, need not be given. In any event, the petitioner has responded to the said notifications and only because he was not selected by the Selection Committee, he cannot turn back and question the notification. Insofar as the meritorious assessment is concerned, it is not for the petitioner to assess himself as meritorious than the third respondent. Assessment should be made by the duly constituted Selection Committee, which has selected the third respondent to the said post. In the absence of any material to show that the petitioner is more meritorious than the third respondent, petitioner is not liable for selection. In the circumstances, I see no merits in the writ petition to interfere with the selection of the third respondent to the post of Assistant Professor (Telugu) by the second respondent. The writ petition is devoid of merits. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 16th April, 2010 SUR