WP(C) 2747/2007 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Heard Mr. A.R. Sikdar, learned counsel for the petitioner as wel l as Mr. N. Choudhury, learned Standing Counsel, Assam University. I have also h eard Mrs. B. Das, learned CGSC appearing for the Respondent No.3. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged th e legality and validity of the Employment Notice No.1/2007 dated 30.4.2007, amon gst others, for the post of Lecture in Political Science (reserved for S/C). Su ch challenge has been made on the ground that the petitioner is already a select ed candidate for the said post, for which a selection was conducted earlier by t he respondent-University. It is a fact that the petitioner was selected for the post of Le cturer in Political Science in an earlier process of selection. Pursuant to such selection, he was offered with the appointment by letter dated 27.12.2006. On receipt of offer of appointment, the petitioner by his Annexure-2 letter dated 2 2.1.2007 addressed to the Registrar, Assam University intimated that he would jo in the University by the 1st February, 2007. By Annexure-3 letter dated 31st Ja nuary, 2007, the pet4itioner informed the University authority that he failed to join the post on 1st February, 2007 as his wife met with an accident. By Annexure-4 letter dated 15.3.2007, the petitioner made a requ est to the University authority to consider his case for appointment as Senior Lecturer instead of Lecturer. In the letter, he categorically stated that he wa s not in a position to join as Lecturer and that he should be allowed to join a s Sr. Lecturer with senior scale of pay. The demand for allowing him to join as Sr. Lecturer with the senior scale of pay was in the following language :- That Sir, presently I am not in a position to join as a Lecture r if your good Office is not satisfied to allow me to join as Sr. Lecturer with the Sr. Scale of pay and allowances, etc. In the aforesaid letter, the petitioner apart from making the d emand for allowing him to join as Sr. Lecturer in the Senior Scale of Pay did no t indicate that he would join the post. Prior to that, the University authority by their Annexure-5 letter dated 28.2.2007 intimated the petitioner that his d ate of appointment was extended but cannot be extended beyond 15.3.2007 under an y circumstances. Thus, strictly going by the communications made with the petiti oner and the condition imposed by him, his appointment ceased with effect from 15.3.2007. By Annexure-8 letter dated 3.4.2007, the University authority tu rned down the request of the petitioner for allowing him to join as Senior Lect urer in the senior scale of pay. By the said letter, the petitioner was intimat ed that he would be entitled to join as Lecturer as per selection on or before 1 6.3.2007. It is the case of the petitioner that the letter reached him on 17 .4.2007 for which he could not join the post. In the meantime, the University re -advertised the post, by Annexure-9 advertisement dated 30.4.2007. The petitione r is aggrieved by the said advertisement. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, they have den ied the contentions raised in the writ petition. It has been stated that the very conduct of the writ petitioner led to the situation in which the petitioner is in. It has further been stated that further concession allowed to the petiti oner upto 16.4.2007 also did not yield any result. Although it is the case of the petitioner that he received the letter on 17.4.2007, but there is nothing to show that the petitioner made any endeavour to join the post or made any praye r for further extension intimating the late-receipt of the latter. Thus, the pe titioner is to thank himself for the situation in which he is in. Apart from the above, it is also on record that the petitioner, pursuant to the impugned advertisement also responded to the same by offering hi s candidature. In fact, he appeared in the selection. Mr. Choudhury, learned co unsel representing the respondent-University has produced the relevant records in this regard. The petitioner having appeared in the selection conducted pursua nt to the impugned advertisement without any protest and without any reservation is now precluded from agitating his grievance in respect of the first selectio n. In this connection, I may gainfully refer to the decision of the Apex Court as reported in (2000) 2 SCC 615 (Suneeta Aggarwal v. State of Haryana) . As in t he instant case, in the said case also, the petitioner appeared in the impugned selection taking chance for favourable consideration and then, questioned the l egality and validity of the decision in respect of the earlier selection. The A pex Court held that the appellant therein having appeared before the selection a s a candidate without any protest and having taken a chance, she was estopped by her conduct from challenging the order passed in respect of the earlier selecti on. For all the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in this w rit petition and accordingly, it is dismissed.