Pemioner Ku. Nisha Shukia, daughter of Shri Narayan Shivdutt Mahavidyaiaya, Shukia, Rafpur. Ex—Jecture‘r, Durga Versus Resgondents 1) Higher State of Education, MP. through Vauabh Secretary, Bhawanx Depat’tment Bhhopal‘ of 2} through Governing its Principai/Seoretaw. body of Durga Mahavidyaiaya, ‘ Raipur, (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of indie) SB: Hon’ble Mr. sahsh K. Agnihotri, J. Pre§ent Shri P.K. Bhaduri, counsei for the petitioner. Shri Shri AS. Gautam Kachhawaha, Bhaduri, counsel Dy. Advocate for ihe Generai respondent for the No.1 State. . DRAL ORDER (Passed on 4-3-2008) By this petition the petitioner seeks the following reliefs: Professor guashing “1) r An all (Geography) appropriate proceedings from writ, for direction the direct stage recruitment or of order advertisement be of passed Asstt. in i ordered “NAV BHARAT" to reguiarize and the unwarcis, servicee and cf the the petitioner respendents and be to treat her as permanently appointed teacher in Geography 2) kindly granted”. Such other reliefs, as the court thinks m, be also 2) The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner became Assistant Professor (Geography) in Durga Mahaviolyalaya from 3-1 24985 and thereafter continued in advertisement inviting appiicatiohs for appointments of Teachers on permanent basis in “Nav Bharat” newspaper on 21-9-1 991i - The petitioner has raised‘several anegations with regard t9 proceedings right from issue of advertisement tin appointmegtt of some teachers. 3) It is admitted case of the petitioner that the petitioner participated in the selection process pursuant to the said advertisement and remained unsuccessfui. The petitioner is at present without service. in this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of ail the proceedings for direct recruitment of Assistant Professor (Geography) from the stage of advertisement and further reguiarization of the services of the petitioner treating her as permanent teacher. Once the petitioner participated in the selection process pursuant to the advertisement he is estopped from raising the issue of seiection process. ‘With regard to reguiarization of service of the petitioner! since the petitioner was not appointed after 304-1992, there is no question of passing an order of reguiarization. 4) This court has decided the simiiar issue by order dated 11-12—2007 passed in Writ Petition (C) No. 2040 of 2007 (Ku. Deepti Pardhi Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others). 5) In the case of Unicn 9f India & ethets Vs, s, Vinodh Kumar 8. others": the Supreme Court observed inter-alts, as under; “it is also well settled that those candidates who had taken part in the selection process knowing fully well the procedure laid down therein were not entitled to Govil question & the See same also {See Rashmi : Munindra Mishra Kumar V. MP. Vs. Public Rajiv Service Commissioni.” 6) in View of foregoing, there is no merit in the case. The petition is accordingly Raiu dismissed. No order asto costs. was > as» » T Sdl- Satish K. Agnihotri ‘ Judge ,M K2007) 8 SCC 100