Judgment :- The prayer in the Writ Petition is as follows:- "The Petitioner hereby prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus or any other appropriate order or direction in the nature of a writ calling for the records relating to proceedings of the first respondent in U.S.O.No.600089/R.III/2003 No.909/RIII/2003, dated 1.11.2003 and U.S.O No.60088/R.III/2003 No.909/RIII/2003 dated 1.11.2003 appointing the respondents 2 and 3 as Associate Professor at Pudukkottai and Coimbatore respectively quash the same and appoint the petitioner as Associate Professor and to give all service and other monetary benefits and pass such further or other orders." 2. The petitioner contends that he is working as Assistant Professor (Senior Scale) in the Department of Diary Sciences, in the first respondent-Madras Veterinary College, Chennai-7. The first respondent called for applications by Advertisement No.1/2003, dated 18.6.2003 for filling up the posts of Professors and Associate Professors. The petitioner is concerned with regard to the post of Associate Professor as set out in the Notification namely, Serial Nos: 5 and 6 in Clause `B' in the Notification. The said posts were notified for the two places namely Coimbatore and Pudukkottai. 3. It is contended that the petitioner has submitted his application along with several others and he has also appeared for the interview conducted on 31.10.2003 before the Selection Committee. It is further contended that even though on the date of notification there were two more vacancies to the post of Associate Professor, the first respondent has chosen to call for advertisement only in respect of two posts. It is further contended that the petitioner is fully qualified in all respects for the posts mentioned in Serial Nos. 5 and 6 and he also participated in the interview. However, he was not selected to either of the posts at Pudukkottai and Coimbatore. On the other hand the respondents 2 and 3 were selected. The impugned orders in the Writ Petitions are the orders selecting the respondents 2 and 3 to the posts of Associate Professor. 4. 5 and 6 and he also participated in the interview. However, he was not selected to either of the posts at Pudukkottai and Coimbatore. On the other hand the respondents 2 and 3 were selected. The impugned orders in the Writ Petitions are the orders selecting the respondents 2 and 3 to the posts of Associate Professor. 4. It is the further contention of the petitioner that as per the Regulations of the first respondent-University, the first respondent ought to have followed the Rule of Reservation and in this connection the learned counsel drawn my attention to Regulation 10 which is extracted as hereunder: "10(i) For all recruitments to the post in the University, the University employees including those transferred to the University from the State Government shall be given preference. (ii) For all recruitments tot he first level entrance posts, 50 per cent for the Backward Classes out of which 20 per cent shall be reserved for Most Backward Classes and Denotified community, 18 percent for Schedule Castes and 1 per cent for Scheduled Tribe candidates shall be reserved. The roster for reservation for B.C./M.B.C/D.N.C./S.C./S.T and O.C candidates to the first level entrance posts shall be as prescribed as per instructions of the State Government from time to time." It is contended that the rule of reservation is not followed and as such the impugned orders are violative of the above Regulation. 5. The next submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the petitioner is more qualified than respondents 2 and 3 who were selected. Hence the petitioner has valid grievance to agitate before this court. 6. Per contra, Mr.S.Vijayakumar, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent-University submits that the contention of the petitioner that the post of Associate Professor is a first level entrance post and as such the rule of reservation has to be followed is not correct. Even a perusal of the Regulation 10(i) and (ii) makes it clear that the roster of reservation shall apply to the first level entrance post only and that too as prescribed by the State Government from time to time. The posts for which the petitioner applied for is not the first level entrance post. 7. Even a perusal of the Regulation 10(i) and (ii) makes it clear that the roster of reservation shall apply to the first level entrance post only and that too as prescribed by the State Government from time to time. The posts for which the petitioner applied for is not the first level entrance post. 7. Even the qualification for the post of Associate Professor, prescribed by the regulation, namely, Tamil Nadu Veterinary and Animal Sciences University Regulations-- Appendix-1A--Serial No.11, is that the minimum qualification of a person who shall be eligible to apply to the said post shall be Ph.D.,Degree with five years experience in teaching/research in the concerned subject. Thus, when the qualification itself prescribes minimum five years experience, suggests that it is not a first level entrance post. Further, according to the learned counsel for the first respondent the first level entrance post as far as the University is concerned on the teaching line is Assistant Professor and not Associate Professor. The Scales of pay for the post of Assistant Professor and Associate Professor are different and the Associate Professor post is considered to be higher in grade than the Post of Assistant Professor. The learned counsel further contends that the University cannot be faulted in calling for notification in respect of two posts alone. He also contends that actually the two posts alone were existing for Coimbatore and Pudukkottai. On the contrary in the very same Notification the total number of posts called for for the purpose of filling up the post of Associate Professor comes to 8 posts in different branches. Hence the University has decided to fill up all the eight posts to which the petitioner has applied for in respect of two posts alone, probably the petitioner is eligible to apply to the said posts only. 8. It is further contended by him that as per the Regulations referred supra, the Constitution of the Selection Committee consist of (a) Vice Chancellor as Chairman, (b) Two External Experts nominated by the Vice Chancellor among the panel of External Experts approved (by the Board) as Members, (c) Faculty Dean, as Member, (d) Director concerned (in respect of Veterinary Faculty) as a Member and (e) Head of the Department concerned as a Member. Inasmuch as the Regulations itself contemplates a Committee as indicated above, the first respondent University has constituted the said committee as per the said Regulations and the selection process was under gone. In fact as many as 41 applications were received for the vacancy at Pudukkottai and 36 applications were received for the vacancy at Coimbatore. After due deliberations and on verification of relevant records and consideration of the merits and demerits of all the candidates, the selection of the respondents 2 and 3 was made for which the petitioner cannot have any grievance. 9. It is further contended by him that when the Notification itself does not provide for any Rule of Reservation, the petitioner cannot now challenge the final order of selection without challenging the very Notification itself. 10. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties. I do not agree with the contention urged by the counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the post of Associate Professor is a first level post and as such the rule of reservation has to be followed. Except a bald statement, the petitioner has not produced any documentary evidence in support of the contention that the post of Associate Professor is a first level entry post. Even Regulation 10(i) upon which reliance was placed upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner proceeds to the effect that the rule of reservation shall be followed to the first level entry post as prescribed by the State Government from time to time. If that being the case, the petitioner has not produced any such instructions issued by the Government, more particularly in respect of filling up of all the Post of Associate Professor to be followed by the first respondent-University. 11. Further as rightly contended by the counsel for the University, if at all the petitioner is aggrieved that the initial Notification itself is not in accordance with law, particularly non-compliance of the Rule of Reservation, nothing prevented the petitioner from challenging the said Notification itself, which was published as early as on 18.6.2003. The petitioner having applied under the said Notification and participated in the Interview on 31.10.2003, is not justified in challenging the final order of selection dated 1.11.2003. The petitioner having applied under the said Notification and participated in the Interview on 31.10.2003, is not justified in challenging the final order of selection dated 1.11.2003. It cannot be suggested that the whole selection process has been rushed through by the University within a short span of time as in some cases where the authorities would intend to pursue the selection in a hasty manner. Admittedly in the case on hand, the whole selection process spreads over for a period of 4/5 months and a person like the petitioner, who is a qualified person with a Doctorate qualification, namely Ph.D., and who has put in nearly 5 years of service as Assistant Professor in the very same University cannot complain about the mode of selection process in the absence of any materials suggesting illegality or infirmity. 12. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner has not attributed any specific motive or mala fides against the first respondent. On the other hand when the University has chosen to complete the process of selection strictly in accordance with the regulations referred to supra by constituting a Committee consisting of the (a) Vice Chancellor, (b) Two external experts, who have been nominated, in the case on hand, in the rank of Dean as Members (c) another Dean of the Faculty as a Member (d) a Director of the concerned faculty as another member (e) part from the head of the department concerned as yet another member, I do not see there is any illegality in the entire selection process. 13. Under the above circumstances, I do not find any merit to entertain the above writ petition and the same is dismissed. Consequently, connected WPMPs are also dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.