ORDER : Civil appeals arising out of SLPs (Civil) Nos. 7957 and 8271 of 1994 A.M. Ahmadi, CJI.- 1. Special leave granted. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants, Dr M. Raja Reddy, the learned counsel for the respondent, M. Srinivas Mohan as well as Osmania University. The brief facts are that the University advertised for recruitment of Professor of Chemistry on 17-7-1986. It issued another advertisement on 17-1-1989 calling for applications in respect of certain teaching posts including three posts of Professors of Chemistry. In that advertisement, it was stated that candidates who had already applied under the 1986 advertisement need not apply again but they could send additional information, if any, for consideration. The appellant was called for interview on 23-4-1989. A select list of seven persons was prepared by the University in which the name of the appellant figured at Serial No. 2. In the said select list, Dr. M. Raja Reddy was shown at Serial No. 7. Six persons were appointed but so far as Dr . M. Raja Reddy is concerned, he was not appointed. The appointments were made by the order dated 30-5-1989/5-6-1989. Dr. M. Raja Reddys contention, however, is that there were six posts and since Dr. V. Veeranagaiah who was at Serial No. 1 was actually transferred and not appointed because he was a Professor elsewhere, he ought to have been appointed in the sixth vacancy. We must first dispose of the contention of Dr. M. Raja Reddy. 3. After the appointments were made, a writ petition was filed in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh by Dr. M. Srinivas Mohan in which only two of the selectees who were at Nos. 6 and 7 in the select list were impleaded as respondents. The other selectees were not parties to that petition nor was their selection questioned. That writ petition was heard by a learned Single Judge who came to the conclusion that only three posts were advertised under both the advertisements and, therefore, the selection made under the 1989 advertisement to the posts of Professors in Chemistry was vitiated. He, therefore, directed the University to specify the number of vacancies against each of the branches of Chemistry like Inorganic, Organic and Physical Chemistry and call for fresh applications indicating the cut-off date and then undertake the selection process de novo. He, therefore, directed the University to specify the number of vacancies against each of the branches of Chemistry like Inorganic, Organic and Physical Chemistry and call for fresh applications indicating the cut-off date and then undertake the selection process de novo. Against this order, the private respondents filed an appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench of the High Court came to the conclusion that the appeal deserved to be dismissed because more posts than those advertised had been filled in and the post in question, namely, Professor of Chemistry, had three vacancies and hence the appointment of more persons than three was bad in law. In view thereof, it noticed a vital infirmity in the selection process as a whole and did not consider it necessary to examine the other aspects. So far as this litigation is concerned, it ended with the decision rendered by the Division Bench affirming the view taken by the learned Single Judge. Dr. M. Raja Reddy did not question this decision before this Court. Therefore, so far as he is concerned, it became final against him. 4. The other four selectees at Serial Nos. 1 to 4 of the select list having been adversely affected by the decision rendered in the said litigation filed a substantive writ petition in the High Court in which the original petitioner of the earlier petition was shown as a respondent along with the University. That petition came up before the same Division Bench which had disposed of the appeal arising out of the first writ petition. The Division Bench after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners came to the conclusion that even though they were not parties to the first writ petition, since they were not able to put forth any valid ground deserving examination, there was no question of entertaining the writ petition. In that view of the matter, it dismissed the writ petition and hence these appeals by special leave. 5. By the first advertisement dated 17-9-1986, amongst the various posts advertised was the post of Professor of Chemistry and the vacancies to be filled in were shown to be three. In the second advertisement dated 17-1-1989, amongst the various posts advertised was the post of Professor of Chemistry and the vacancy again numbering three. 5. By the first advertisement dated 17-9-1986, amongst the various posts advertised was the post of Professor of Chemistry and the vacancies to be filled in were shown to be three. In the second advertisement dated 17-1-1989, amongst the various posts advertised was the post of Professor of Chemistry and the vacancy again numbering three. The selection was also made on that basis and, as stated earlier, in all, seven persons were entered in the select list. So far as the appellant, Dr. P. Satyanarayana Reddy is concerned, as stated earlier, he was shown at No. 2. The view taken by the learned Single Judge that the post should have been split up on the basis of the different branches of Chemistry, namely, Inorganic, Organic and Physical Chemistry, does not appear to be a valid ground for setting aside the selection for the simple reason that the posts advertised were of Professors of Chemistry. The appellant being at No. 2, even if the view taken in the first round of litigation that only three posts were advertised under both the advertisements was correct, the appointment of the appellant who was at Serial No. 2 at the select list could not have been questioned. It must also be realised that the appellants had not questioned the appointments of the first four persons shown in the select list and that is why they were not made parties to the first round of litigation. Unfortunately, because the High Court quashed the entire selection process they got adversely affected unheard and that is why they were compelled to file a substantive petition to have their appointments upheld. The High Court fell back on the earlier decision taken by them in the first round of litigation and, therefore, their petition came to be dismissed. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the basic premise on which the High Court proceeded cannot be sustained. It may be mentioned that the substantive writ petition was filed by the candidates at Serial Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 in the select list and a separate substantive writ petition was filed by the candidate at Serial No. 4 in the select list, which also met the same fate the next day. They, therefore, sail in the same boat. 1, 2, 3 and 5 in the select list and a separate substantive writ petition was filed by the candidate at Serial No. 4 in the select list, which also met the same fate the next day. They, therefore, sail in the same boat. The question then is whether under both the advertisements, only three posts were advertised, or six posts were advertised, three under each advertisement. The University has in its affidavit stated that after the first advertisement was issued in 1986 and before the process of selection could be completed, there were three more vacancies and, therefore, they issued the second advertisement in 1989 and allowed those who had applied under the first advertisement to compete for the second advertisement also so that they may not be debarred from competing for all the six posts although the new applicants would also thereby get an opportunity to compete for the first advertisement posts. The High Court perhaps took the view that only three posts were advertised under both the advertisements because of the way in which the second advertisement was issued. There was, however, no reason for the High Court to construe the two advertisements so narrowly as to think that there were only three posts when the University had indicated that there were three more vacancies which were required to be filled in. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the University had acted legally and in accordance with the rules in filling up the six posts in question. The first six persons in the select list were, therefore, entitled to appointment and they have since been appointed. So far as Dr. M. Raja Reddy is concerned, he has been shown at Serial No. 7 in the select list. As we pointed out earlier, he was staking his claim on the premise that the candidate at Serial No. 1 had been appointed by transfer and, therefore, he could not be said to be a selectee, but the fact remains that he was appointed on one of the six posts advertised and as stated earlier Dr. M. Raja Reddy had exhausted his remedy in the first round of litigation which went against him, but in any case, even otherwise he had to wait his turn after the six selectees were appointed. 6. In the result, we allow these appeals and set aside the impugned order of the High Court. M. Raja Reddy had exhausted his remedy in the first round of litigation which went against him, but in any case, even otherwise he had to wait his turn after the six selectees were appointed. 6. In the result, we allow these appeals and set aside the impugned order of the High Court. There will, however, be no order as to costs. Civil appeals arising out of SLPs (Civil) Nos. 22978 and 22979 of 1994 7. Special leave granted. 8. In view of the above, these appeals will also stand disposed of with no order as to costs. Appeals allowed.