JUDGMENT C. Agrawal, A. C. J. and A. N. Varma, J. - Writ Petition No. 16111 of 1988 has been filed by Dr. Y. K. Mathur. Head of the Department of Entomology, Chandra Shekhar Azad University of Agriculture and Technology, Kanpur, seeking certiorari quashing the impugned advertisement No. 1/84, Item No. 6 (Annexure III). The grievance of the petitioner is with regard to Item No. 6 of the said advertisement, which is being reproduced below : "6. Professor and Head (Faculty of Agriculture, Entomology, Plant Pathology, Agricultural Biochemistry, Soil Conservation an 1 Water Management, Horticulture, Seed Technology, Home Science and Agricultural Engineering)." 2. In July 1975, U. P. Institute of Agriculture Sciences, Kanpur, was converted into Chandra Shekhar Azad University of Agriculture and Technology. This University has been created under the U. P. Krishi Evam Prodgyogik Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1958 (U. P. Act No. XLV of 1958). The petitioner, who was M. Sc. (Agriculture) and Ph.D , was appointed as Entomologist in the year 1975, after having been selected by the U. P. Public Service Commission. He became the Head of Department of Entomology in 1984. Since then, the petitioner has been discharging his duties as provided under the Act and the Statutes, as Head of the Department of Entomology. 3. The petitioner made a representation on 23-12-1987 to the Chancellor under Section 23 of the Act through the Vice-Chancellor, Chandra Shekhar Azad University of Agriculture and Technology, alleging that no post of Professor and Head existed and, therefore, the Chancellor was requested not to approve the selection held on the said post which had been advertised under advertisement No. 1/84. The claim of the petitioner was that since there was no post of Professor and Head of Department of Entomology, the advertisement made was invalid, being against the provisions of the Act and the Statutes, and, consequently, the same was liable to be quashed. 4. The writ petition has been contested by respondent No. 1, and it has been asserted that the petitioner Dr. Y. K. Mathur had never been appointed and absorbed as Pro essor and Head of the Department of Entomology. The case of the University was that Dr. Y. K. Mathur had been appointed only as Entomologist (Insect Physiologist), which is equivalent to the post of Associate Professor. Before the advertisement was made, Dr. Y. K. Mathur had never been appointed and absorbed as Pro essor and Head of the Department of Entomology. The case of the University was that Dr. Y. K. Mathur had been appointed only as Entomologist (Insect Physiologist), which is equivalent to the post of Associate Professor. Before the advertisement was made, Dr. T. P. S. Teotiu was given the charge of Professor and Head, who was senior to Dr. Y. K. Mathur, Dr. T. P. S. Teotia retired in 1984, upon whose relinquishing the office, Dr. Y. K. Mathur, who was working as Associate Professor, was in addition to his own duties given the charge of Professor and Head. He had not been given any additional emoluments for the same. 5. After the advertisement made in 1985, interview took place on 10-3-1988 for the post of Professor and Head of the Department of Entomology Dr. Y. K Mathur appeared for the post of Professor and Head, so did Dr. N. D Pandey, who was selected, and according to the case of the University he joined on 6-12-1988. 6. Thereafter, Writ Petition No. 24044 of 1988 was filed by Dr. Y.K. Mathur for certiorari quashing the appointment of Dr. N. D. Pandey, appointed in pursuance of the advertisement aforesaid, on 6-12-1988. 7. We have hem d counsel for the parties, and are of opinion that the argument of the petitioner for quashing the appointment of Dr. N. D Pandey is untenable, and that the petitioner is neither entitled to certiorari nor for mandamus prayed for. 8. Dr. N. D. Pandey had appeared at the selection along with Dr. Y K Mathur, Dr. Y. K. Mathur was not found suitable and, there lore, he was not given appointment in pursuance of the report of the Selection Committee whereas Dr. N. D. Pandey was held to be entitled to the same and, as such, was appointed on 6-12-1988. Since them, according to the University, he is working. 9. The argument of the petitioner was that there is no post of Professor and Head of the Department and that now the post is 'Head of the Department'. It is on this ground that the advertisement was challenged. 10. The Act and the Statutes framed under Section 28 of the said Act empower the Selection Committee to issue advertisement for the post for which the petitioner as well as Dr. H. D. Pandey appeared. It is on this ground that the advertisement was challenged. 10. The Act and the Statutes framed under Section 28 of the said Act empower the Selection Committee to issue advertisement for the post for which the petitioner as well as Dr. H. D. Pandey appeared. Statute 4(c) of Chapter XIII of the Statutes provides for constitution of the Selection Committee for appointment to the post of Head of Department. Statute 4(d) deals with appointment of a Professor. Taking together, it would be found that the Selection Committee could be constituted for appointment of Head and Professor. The appointment of Head and Professor is subject to confirmation by the Board. 11. One of the grievance of the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 24344 of 1988 was that since the Board had not approved the appointment of Dr. N. D. Pandey, he could not function as Professor and Head. This fact has been admitted in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the University in Writ Petition No. 12269 of 1989. Paragraph 17 of this counter-affidavit of the University has admitted the assertion of Paragraph 22 of that writ petition wherein it was alleged that the Board is the appointing authority whose constitution, powers and duties have been given in Section 10 of the Act. Clause (b) of sub-section (7) of Section 10 dealing with the powers and duties of the Board lays down: "To appoint the Members of the academic and administrative staff of the University in the manner prescribed." 12. Sub-section (1) of Section 26 of the Act confers power on the Board to make appointment of members of the staff of the University on the recommendation of the Kulpati. Sub-section (I; of Section 26 reads as under : "26(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the members of the staff of the University shall be appointed by the Board on the recommendation of Kulpati." 13. We have already mentioned above about the constitution of the Selection Committee in Statute 4(c), which is in Chapter XIII, dealing with appointment of staff. The Vice-Chancellor makes the appointment subject to the approval by the Board. Statutes 8 and 9 are relevant on this issue. We have already mentioned above about the constitution of the Selection Committee in Statute 4(c), which is in Chapter XIII, dealing with appointment of staff. The Vice-Chancellor makes the appointment subject to the approval by the Board. Statutes 8 and 9 are relevant on this issue. The relevant portion of Statute 9 reads : "Where the Board is the appointing authority or the appointment is to be made subject to the approval of the Board, the Kulpati may after considering the recommendations of the Selection Committee constituted for the purpose, make temporary appointments to such posts....................." 54. In the instant case, therefore, the appointment of Dr. N. D. Pandey was made in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Statutes. This appointment, however, is subject to the Board's approval. As stated in Paragraph 17 of the counter-affidavit in writ petition No. 12269 of 1989, the Board did not meet upto 7-8-1989, when the said counter-affidavit was prepared. Counsel appearing for the University Sri V. B. Singh also admitted the name in the oral arguments. 14. To the appointment of Dr. N. D. Pandey, Dr. Y. K. Mathur, had a number of objections about the constitution of the Selection Committee and illegalities. We did not decide the same as in our opinion that is not the occasion. The appointment being subject to the approval of the Board, whatever Dr. Y. K. Mathur, intends to assert against Dr. N.D. Padeny's appointment, the course open to him is to file a written representation to the Board. We are certain that the Board will consider those objections. Lest our judgment be read as meaning that oral hearing is not required to be given to Dr. Y. K. Mathur, we make it clear that is not we are saying in this judgment. 15. Certain objections had been raised against the advertisement by Dr. Y. R. Mathur in his Writ Petition. We find no merit in the same. The advertisement was in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Statutes. Moreover, the petitioner having voluntarily appeared in the interview without raising any kind of objection against the constitution of the Selection Committee and taken a chance of favourable recommendation in favour, it was not open to him to turn round and question the validity of the advertisement or the constitution of the Committee. Moreover, the petitioner having voluntarily appeared in the interview without raising any kind of objection against the constitution of the Selection Committee and taken a chance of favourable recommendation in favour, it was not open to him to turn round and question the validity of the advertisement or the constitution of the Committee. See G. Sharma v. Lucknow University, AIR 1976 1976 SC 2428. 16. Arguments were advanced by the petitioner's counsel for giving of direction to the Chancellor for deciding the representation made by the petitioner against the appointment of Dr. N. D. Pandey, copy of which was shown to us, filed as Annexure III. As the appointment had not been finalised by the Board, there was no occasion for the petitioner to have filed any representation. The prayer for the Chancellor to consider the representation is misconceived. 17. The delay on the part of the Board to hold the meeting for the purpose of considering the proposals made by the Selection Committee is not justified. We, consequently, direct the Board of Management, Chandra Shekar Azad University of Agriculture and Technology, Kanpur, to hold the meeting, if possible, within three months from today for consideration of the matter of appointment of Dr. N. D. Pandey. 18. Subject to the above, writ petitions Nos. 16111 of 1988 and 24044 of 1988 are disposed of. The Interim order passed in both the writ petitions are vacated.