( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has prayed for a mandamus directing the respondents not to make any selection in pursuance of the advertisement dated 12. 2. 1996. He has also challenged the constitutional validity of Section 3 of the U. P. State Universities (Amendment) Act 1998. ( 2 ) THE dispute in this case is regarding the post of Principal of motilal Nehru Regional Engineering College, Allahabad. It is this post on which the selection of respondent no. 5 was made on contract basis. The petitioner is working as Professor in the Engineering college and he has challenged the selection of respondent no. 5 for the post of Principal of the college. ( 3 ) IT appears that the U. P. legislature has amended thelaw regarding the appointment of Principal of the Motilal Nehru engineering College, Allahabad Section 3 of the U. P. Amendment act no. 9 of 1998 states as follows: "31-B (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other provision of this Act or in the Uttar pradesh Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980, appointment to the post of Principal or teacher of the Motilal nehru Regional Engineering College, Allahabad shall be made in accordance with the rules and bye laws of the Motilal nehru Regional College Society, Allahabad. (2) All appointments made before the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities (Amendment) Act 1998 in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1) shall be deemed to have been made under the said sub-section as if the provisions of the said sub section were in force at all material times. " ( 4 ) A perusal of the above amendment shows that appointment to the post of Principal of Motilal Nehru Regional Engineering College shall be made in accordance with the Rules and Bye-laws of the motilal Nehru Regional Society, Allahabad. Sub-section (2) of section 31 states that any appointment made before the amending act in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1) shall be deemed to have been made under the said sub-section as if the provisions of the said sub-section were in force at all material times. Admittedly the petitioners appointment has been made under the bye laws of the Motilal Nehru Regional Engineering college Society. The relevant part of Bye law 4 of the bye laws of the Society states as follows: "4. Admittedly the petitioners appointment has been made under the bye laws of the Motilal Nehru Regional Engineering college Society. The relevant part of Bye law 4 of the bye laws of the Society states as follows: "4. SELECTION COMMITTEE: selection Committee for filling the various teaching posts of professor, Reader and lecturer including the Principal, other than those on which appointments are made on contract basis shall be constituted in the manner laid down below namely: (i) Selection Committee for the post of Principal (on which appointments are made on contract basis): 1. Chairman of Board of Governors/ Chairman chief Secretary of the State Govt. 2. Educational Advisor (T), Ministry Member of Human Resource Development government of India, New Delhi. 3. Secretary, Technical Education Member government of U. P. Lucknow two of three Experts to be nominated by the Chairman of the board such as director of IIT vice Chancellor, university of Roorkee, Roorkee. " There is no denial that the petitioner was appointed on contract basis after the selection by the selection committee mentioned in Rule 4. Hence in our opinion the selection and appointment of respondent no. 5 was valid as it was in accordance with U. P. Amendment Act No 9 of 1998. Learned counsel for the petitioner alleged that the appointment of the Principal cannot be made on contract basis. This argument cannot be accepted in view of bye law 4 which has been quoted above. Such bye-law specifically mentions that the appointment of principal can be made on contract basis. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the constitutional validity of U. P. Amendment Act no. 9 of 1998 on the ground that only Moti Lal Nehru Regional Engineering college, allahabad has been mentioned therein and this law has been made applicable only to that college. We see no unconstitutionality in the above amendment. It is open to the legislature to pick out any particular matter which is required by the legislature to be treated specially and there is no principle that legislation without making a similar legislation for other bodes makes the legislation unconstitutional. A classificaton can be reasonable ever though a single object is treated as a class by itself vide Ramkrishna Dalmia vs Tendolkar (1955 SCR 279, State of J. and K. Vs Golam Mohd. A classificaton can be reasonable ever though a single object is treated as a class by itself vide Ramkrishna Dalmia vs Tendolkar (1955 SCR 279, State of J. and K. Vs Golam Mohd. AIR 1967 SC 122 , Mittal vs Union of India AIR 1983 SC 1 , lachman vs State of Punjab AIR 1963 SC 222 etc. ( 5 ) IN paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the engineering college it has been stated that the selection on the post of Principal of Motilal Nehru Engineering College is made in accordance with the provisions of Memorandum of Association and the Rules and Bye laws of the society. In paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit it has been stated that the bye laws has been approved by the Central and State Governments vide Annexures 1 and 2 to the counter affidavit. In paragraph 9 ot the counter affidavit it is stated that the petitioner also applied for being considered for appointment of the post of Principal but as a result of short listing of applications the petitioner was not called for interview. He filed writ petition no. 17471 of 1996, which was dismissed by a Division Bench of this court on 21. 5. 1996. In paragraph 11 it is stated that it is false to say that Sri S. K. Agarwal functioned as Chairman of the Board of governors. The Chief Secretary of the State was Chairman of the board of Governors and this post is now held by the Minister of technical Education, U. P. In paragraph 13 it is stated that the selection committee for the appointment on the post of Principal was constituted strictly in accordance with the Memorandum of association and the bye laws of the Rules of the Society. In paragraph 14 it is stated that the writ petition filed by the teaching and administrative staff association to its Vice President was dismissed on 8. 4. 1997. In paragraph 19 it is stated that the record of the case was placed before the Division Bench of this Court which after being satisfied that the same was just and proper was pleased to dismiss the writ petition. Hence the same controversy cannot be raised again. 4. 1997. In paragraph 19 it is stated that the record of the case was placed before the Division Bench of this Court which after being satisfied that the same was just and proper was pleased to dismiss the writ petition. Hence the same controversy cannot be raised again. In paragraph 25 of the counter affidavit it is stated that the criteria for short listing and screening of the applications was placed before the Division Bench of this Court which after being satisfied about the bonafide action of the respondent was pleased to dismiss the writ petition. In paragraph 27 it is denied that there was any collusion between S. K. Agarwal and respondent no. 5 ( 6 ) IN paragraph 30 of the counter affidavit it is stated that in all other Engineering Colleges which are maintained by the State government selection and appointment on the post of Principal is made according to their own Memorandum of Association and bye laws of the Society. Hence by making amendment of the law in the case of Motilal Nehru Engineering college, the process of selection and appointment has been made uniform. ( 7 ) IN our opinion there is no merit in this petition. As already stated above the petitioner was appointed as Principal after a valid selection by the selection committee under bye law 4 of Societys, bye Laws. We see no unconstitutionality in U. P. Amendment Act 9 of 1998, and in particular the said amendment does not violate article 14 of the Constitution. Thus there is no force in this petition and it is accordingly dismissed. .