JUDGMENT B.L. Yadav, J. - By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner has prayed for a writ of Certiorari quashing the recommendation of the Selection Committee dated 27-7-79 for the post of Lecturers in the Department of Zoology, Banaras Hindu University. The next prayer is for a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to advertise the post of lecturers in the said department. 2. The facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner has passed his M.Sc. Examination in Zoology with 53.5% marks whereas in his B.Sc. Examination the marks obtained by him were 52.3% and he has submitted his thesis for Ph.D. in September 1978 and viva voce for the grant of the Ph.D. Degree to the petitioner was held in March 1979 and the selection for the post of lecturer was held on 27-7-79 and the petitioner has not applied for the post of lecturer. The first advertisement for two posts of lecturer in the department of Zoology was made on 28-9-76 whereas another Post of Lecturer in Zoology with specialisation in Cytogenetics was advertised on 2-3-1977. Some other posts of Readers in some other departments were also advertised. Ultimately the Selection Committee recommended ten candidates for the post of lecturer in Zoology delivered including three posts which were already advertised. Even though the petitioner did not make the application nor he appeared before the Selection Committee for interview, but he has challenged the result of the Selection Committee on the ground that he was the better qualified candidate to be appointed but he was denied opportunity by not advertising the ten posts as only three posts were advertised. By the present petition the result of the Selection Committee was sought to be challenged. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by Dr. Amitab Krishan, one of the respondents, on behalf of Dr. Sripati Shukla, etc. and he has alleged that the petitioner was not qualified inasmuch as he did not hold first or high second class master's degree nor he was PhD. on the date of advertisement. In the note appended to the advertisement it was made clear that on the date of application a candidate need not be Ph.D. but it is obligatory that he has finished his Ph.D. within five years from the date of his appointment. on the date of advertisement. In the note appended to the advertisement it was made clear that on the date of application a candidate need not be Ph.D. but it is obligatory that he has finished his Ph.D. within five years from the date of his appointment. Another counter affidavit has been filed by one Bali Ram, Junior Assistant Litigation Cell, Banaras Hindu University and he has alleged that the petitioner did not fulfil the minimum essential qualification in terms of the advertisement No. 11/76-77 inasmuch as he was not having consistently good academic record with first or high second class Master's degree nor he obtained 55% marks at least, that the petitioner should have appeared before the Selection Committee but he failed to do so. In the result the recommendation of the Selection Committee was perfectly correct and the candidates were selected after following the procedure prescribed. 4. Sri P.N. Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the petitioner was having essential qualification inasmuch as he was having second class M.Sc. degree and has obtained Ph.D. and even though he has obtained only 53.5% marks in M.Sc. and passed in second division but he was qualified. It was next urged that in any case the selection was held for ten posts of lecturer whereas only three posts were advertised. Reliance was placed on Dr. J. P. Kulshreshth v. Chancellor, AIR 1980 SC 2141 : (1980 Lab IC 692) and Dr. R. C. Gupta v. Chancellor, Kumaun University, 1982 UPLBEC 519: (1982 All LJ 899). 5. Sri Siddheswari Prasad learned counsel appeared for the University and Sri K.M.L. Hajela appeared for the candidates selected. It was urged on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner was not qualified as he did not hold first class or high second class Master's degree nor he was Ph.D. and the petitioner having obtained only 53.5% marks in M.Sc. even though passed in second class, but the marks obtained by him did not constitute high second class Master's degree. Hence the essential qualification was lacking and it was just a preferential and desirable qualification that Ph.D. was required. But that could have been obtained even within five years from the date of appointment. even though passed in second class, but the marks obtained by him did not constitute high second class Master's degree. Hence the essential qualification was lacking and it was just a preferential and desirable qualification that Ph.D. was required. But that could have been obtained even within five years from the date of appointment. The petitioner has no legal right as he has not made the application nor he was selected and without a legal right he cannot challenge the selection of the contesting respondents. In any case the petitioner should have made application and should have appeared before the Selection Committee. The excuse of the petitioner that he was not Ph.D. on the date of advertisement, was baseless. The petitioner appears to be sleeping over his rights and was not vigilant, hence this Court need not consider the petitioner's grievance and he was not entitled to any relief. 6. It appears necessary that before we consider the arguments urged on behalf of the parties we may refer to some of the relevant provisions of the Banaras Hindu University Act, 1915. Section 2 enacts the definition clause and S. 4(a) provides powers of the University and sub-cl. (7) provides that the University shall have the power to appoint persons to lectureship's etc. Section 5 enacts that the President of India shall be the Visitor of the University. Sub-sec. (7) of S. 5 provides that the Visitor shall have the power to annul any proceeding of the University which is not in consonance with the Act, Statute or Ordinances. Section 8(a) provides authorities of the University including the Court, Executive Council and Academic Council etc. The Court has, however, been provided in S. 9 and it has been enacted that it shall be an advisory body. The Executive Council has been provided under S. 10 whereas the Academic Council has been provided under S. 11. Section 17 provides for Statutes, S. 18 for Ordinances and S. 19 provides power to make regulations. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties we are of the opinion that the writ petition appears to be devoid of merits. The first moot point that falls for our consideration is whether the petitioner has got the essential qualification as indicated in the advertisement at Serial No. 16 (Annex. C-A. 1). 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties we are of the opinion that the writ petition appears to be devoid of merits. The first moot point that falls for our consideration is whether the petitioner has got the essential qualification as indicated in the advertisement at Serial No. 16 (Annex. C-A. 1). A complete copy of advertisement No. 11/1976-77, which was relevant for the purpose has been filed as Annex. C-A. 1 along with the counter affidavit on behalf of the University. The advertisement provides that for the post of lecturer a candidate must have "consistently good academic record with first or high second class Master's degree in the subject concerned." The desirable qualification was doctorate degree or a published work of an equally high standard. In the note appended to the advertisement it has been provided that if a teacher appointed lecturer is not a Ph.D. at the time of appointment, it would be obligatory that he finishes his Ph.D. within five years of his appointment or gives evidence of equivalent research work, further if he does not fulfil the above requirements within a period of five years of his appointment his increment will be stopped till such time as he fulfils these requirements. 8. It is the admitted case of the parties that the petitioner has passed his M.Sc. in second class with only 53.5% marks. It is certain that the petitioner did not have first class Master's degree rather he passed his M.Sc. in second division and the marks obtained by him were only 53.5%. The question for our consideration is can this be said to be high second class Master's degree? Even though earlier there was some conflict of opinion, but the matter has now been set at rest in J. P. Kulshreshth v. Chancellor, Allahabad University, (1980 Lab IC 692) (SC) (supra) in which principles were laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court, for high second class Master's degree in the matter concerning the Allahabad University, whereas we are concerned with the second class Master's degree of the Banaras Hindu University but the principle is the same. Hence we deem it proper to rely upon this decision. The criterion has been laid down that the marks of more than 55% would constitute the high second class marks. Hence we deem it proper to rely upon this decision. The criterion has been laid down that the marks of more than 55% would constitute the high second class marks. In that case one Sri Agarwal, respondent 8 had obtained 53.8% marks and he was termed as slightly below the middle line in the second class range (on page 2144 para 9). In the instant case also the petitioner has obtained only 53.5% marks. Hence he was not holding the high second class Master's degree. Therefore, in our considered opinion the petitioner was lacking in essential qualifications. 9. As regards the petitioner's Ph.D. degree, but Ph.D. degree was not one of the essential qualifications rather it was desirable qualification which could not be equivalent to essential qualification. Section 17 of the Act provides that statutes maybe framed for all or any of the following matters including laying down qualifications and appointment of teachers in the University. In the statutes, the qualifications for the post of lecturers were laid down and a complete advertisement has been filed as Annex. C-A. 1 to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the University. Under Item 16 essential qualification has been indicated and that is consistently good academic record with first or high second class Master's degree. As discussed above, in view of the ratio in Dr. J. P. Kulshreshtha v. Chancellor, University of Allahabad, (1980 Lab IC 692) (supra) by their Lordships of the Supreme Court, the petitioner having obtained just 53.5% marks was below the middle line in the second class range. In other words the petitioner did not have high second class Master's degree. 10. As regards the effect of petitioner's possessing Ph.D. degree, that was only a desirable qualification and even though an applicant did not possess Ph.D. degree on the date of advertisement, he can still make an application and the position has been clarified about the Ph.D. degree. It has been laid down that it would be obligatory that the applicant completes his Ph.D. if he has not completed at the time of appointment, within five years of his appointment and even though he did not complete his Ph.D. within five years only his increment would be stopped till such time he fulfils this requirement. It is thus obvious that Ph.D. degree was not essential qualification. It is thus obvious that Ph.D. degree was not essential qualification. The petitioner has urged in para 10 of his writ petition that as the petitioner did not have Ph.D. degree, which was desirable qualification, he did not apply in response to the advertisement for two posts of lecturer in Zoology. It is evident that the petitioner was misled about the importance of Ph.D. degree. He appears to have assigned more importance to Ph.D. degree rather he considered it to be essential qualification, whereas this qualification of Ph.D. degree could have been supplemented by obtaining it even within five years from the date of appointment or in any case even after five years he could have obtained it, at any time, say within next five years or ten years and the only limitation imposed was that the increment of the petitioner could have been stopped. The petitioner did not apply for the post of lecturer and for that he should thank himself. The petitioner must have been vigilant enough to have applied even though only two posts of lecturer were advertised or in any case he should have been vigilant enough to make the application at any time before actually the Selection Committee held its meeting to select candidates. It is well-known that law assists those who are vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights (i.e. VIGILANTIBUS, NON DORMIENTIBUS, JURA SUBVENIVENT). We are, therefore, unable to subscribe to the view that the petitioner could not apply as he did not possess Ph.D. degree on the date of advertisement. There was no denial of opportunity to the petitioner. 11. As regards the controversy about 10 posts not being advertised, suffice it say that as we have held that as the petitioner was lacking in essential qualification hence he need not open his mouth too wide in challenging the appointment for the post for which he was lacking in essential qualifications. Otherwise also two posts were already advertised and thereafter specialised posts were also advertised. The University has authority to vary the number of vacancies according to needs. It was obligatory on the petitioner to have made the application first and thereafter in case he felt aggrieved, he could have challenged the result of the selection committee. Otherwise also two posts were already advertised and thereafter specialised posts were also advertised. The University has authority to vary the number of vacancies according to needs. It was obligatory on the petitioner to have made the application first and thereafter in case he felt aggrieved, he could have challenged the result of the selection committee. In the instant case as the petitioner did not possess requisite qualification and the ten posts appear to have been filed in after following the procedure prescribed, we do not find any merit in this point of the petitioner as well. 12. Dr. J. P. Kulshreshth v. Chancellor, Allahabad University, (1980 Lab IC 692) (supra), we have considered and the criterion laid down was that persons having more than 55% marks could be considered to be having high second class Master's degree in the instant case the petitioner has obtained only 53.5% marks, hence he could not be said to possess high second class Master's degree and as such this case is of no help to the petitioner. Similarly, Division Bench case, Dr. R.C. Gupta v. The Chancellor, Kumaun University, (1982 All LJ 899) (supra), to which one of us (Brother K.C. Agarwal, J. was a member), was a case on different facts. Further that was a case under the U. P. State Universities Act, 1973. Section 31(10) of that Act, so far as it is relevant is set put below : "31(10) - No selection or any appointment under this section shall be made except after the advertisement of vacancies in at least three issues of two newspapers having adequate circulation in U.P." 13. A bare reading of the aforesaid provision makes it abundantly clear that the provision was made mandatory by the legislature and unless the vacancy was advertised in at least three issues of two newspapers, the selection cannot be held. There is, however, no such section in the Banaras Hindu University Act. Hence the ratio of that case was based entirely on different statutory provision and that case is of no assistance to the petitioner. 14. There is yet another aspect of the matter. It is well settled principle that a person before invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution must have a legal right. Hence the ratio of that case was based entirely on different statutory provision and that case is of no assistance to the petitioner. 14. There is yet another aspect of the matter. It is well settled principle that a person before invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution must have a legal right. There may be, of course, some exceptions where a writ petition is filed by somebody else in public interest litigation. In that case it may be that the petitioner even though has no legal right but he can challenge such order or bring certain injustice or illegality before the Court. But in the instant case, the petitioner himself has filed the present petition and has alleged that he was having essential and preferential qualifications. As we have held earlier, the petitioner did not have essential qualification. Further without applying for the post in pursuance of the advertisement it cannot be said that the petitioner was deprived of any opportunity. The petitioner cannot be expected to challenge the appointment of the contesting respondents for the post of lecturer through this petition, even though, he did not make the application for appointment nor he was possessed of essential qualification. Further the petitioner has no legal right to file the present petition. 15. Apart from what we have stated above, we would like to add that under S. 5(7) of the Act it was provided that the Visitor may, by order in writing, annul any proceeding of the University which is not in conformity with the Act, Statute or Ordinances. In the instant case if, according to the petitioner the selection was not made in conformity with the Act, Statute or Ordinances etc., he should have made a representation before the Visitor who has got all the powers to annul any proceeding of the University which was not in conformity with the Act or the Statute. The petitioner did not avail that remedy and hastened to file the present petition in this Court. The instant petition, we consider, deserves to be dismissed on an additional ground as barred by an alternative remedy. The petitioner is entitled to no relief. 16. In view of the discussions made above. the present petition lacks merit and the same is hereby dismissed. Under the circumstances we, however, make no order as to costs.