Judgment :- This writ petition has been filed challenging the appointment of the third respondent as a Lecturer in the second respondent University, vide order, dated 112. 2000, and for a consequential direction directing the first and the second respondents to appoint the petitioner in the post of Lecturer in the defence and Strategic Studies Department. 2. The petitioner has stated that the second respondent University had issued a notification, on 7. 2000, 111. 2000 and 111. 2000, inviting applications from the suitable candidates for the recruitment to the post of Lecturer in the various Departments, including the Department of Defence and Strategic Studies. There were about 65 posts of lecturers in the various Departments and one post was shown to be vacant in the Department of Defence and Strategic Studies. 3. The petitioner belongs to a denotified community, which comes under the Most Backward Community. The petitioner did his Post Graduate degree in the year 1987 and completed his Doctorate in the year 1994. The petitioner was selected as a Guest Lecturer in the Defence and Strategic Studies Department of the second respondent University in the year 1998 and since then he has been working as a full time Guest lecturer in the second respondent University. 4. It has been further stated that in the notification, dated 2. 2000, one post was shown to be vacant in the Department of Defence and Strategic Studies. The petitioner has a good academic record and research experience in the discipline of Defence and Strategic Studies. He has written and published 9 books and 6 research articles on various topics pertaining to the Defence and Strategic Studies. The petitioner had applied to the post of Lecturer, on 18. 2000, and he was called for an interview, on 112. 2000. Even though the petitioner had performed well in the interview, the second respondent had acted in undue haste and had issued the appointment order, on 112. 2000, itself appointing the third respondent. The third respondent had also joined as a Lecturer under the second respondent University, immediately thereafter. The appointment of the third respondent is in violation of the scheme of reservation and it is vitiated by procedural irregularities. 2000, itself appointing the third respondent. The third respondent had also joined as a Lecturer under the second respondent University, immediately thereafter. The appointment of the third respondent is in violation of the scheme of reservation and it is vitiated by procedural irregularities. Ordinance 7 Volume 1 provides that full time lecturers of the University shall be appointed only by the Committee consisting of the Vice-Chancellor, the Chairman of the Board of Studies concerned and four other persons, who are experts in the subject in which the appointment is to be made. In the case of a Lecturer, one of the experts should be a University Professor dealing in the subject, if there is one. However, such a procedure had not been followed, while selecting the third respondent as a Lecturer in the second respondent University. According to the procedure being followed for the appointment of the Lecturer, it was the turn of the Most Backward Class person, in accordance with the policy of reservation. The petitioner ought to have been considered for the appointment, as he was belonging to the Most Backward class Community instead of the third respondent who has been appointed in the general turn (open category) by circumventing the rule of reservation. .5. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the second respondent University, it has been stated that in accordance with the University Grants Commissions recommendations, the Government of Tamil Nadu, in G.O.Ms.No.112, Higher Education H-1 Department, dated 23. 1999, while prescribing the revised scales of pay to the teachers, effective from 1. 1996, has also prescribed the guidelines for the constitution of the Selection Committees in the University for the Selection of Lecturers, Readers and Professors. As per the guidelines prescribed, the Selection Committee for the selection of Lecturers should consist of the Vice-Chancellor to be the Chairperson of the Selection Committee, 3 experts in the concerned subject, to be invited on the basis of the list recommended by the Vice-Chancellor and approved by the Executive Council/Syndicate, the Dean of the concerned Faculty/Head/Chairperson of the Department and an academician nominated by the Visitor/Chancellor. As per the guidelines, the quorum should be four, out of which atleast two outside subject experts must be present. The said Government Order prescribing the revised scales of pay to the teachers, effective from 1. As per the guidelines, the quorum should be four, out of which atleast two outside subject experts must be present. The said Government Order prescribing the revised scales of pay to the teachers, effective from 1. 1996, along with the various other recommendations/guidelines, has been adopted and action had also been initiated to bring about the amendments to Statute-7 of Chapter IX of University Calendar Volume-I, with regard to the Constitution of the Selection Committees. Since the said amendment was in the process, the Governor-Chancellors approval was also obtained for the inclusion of the nominee in the selection committee. 6. It has been further stated that the Syndicate of the University, by its resolution, dated 18. 2000, had authorised the Vice-Chancellor to nominate the experts to serve on the various Selection Committees to select the candidates for the posts of lecturers in the various Departments of the University. The experts in the selection Committee had been nominated from the panel of the experts suggested by the Head of the Department and approved by the Syndicate and also as per the authorization approved by the Syndicate. 7. It has been further stated that since some of the experts nominated earlier had declined to be part of the selection process, three experts, namely, Gp.Capt.R.Krishnamurthy, Former Head of the Department of Defence Studies, University of Madras, Maj.Gen.Sudhir Mohn, Commandant, Officers Training Academy, Chennai, and Prof.Rajendra Prasad, Head of Defence and Strategic Studies, University of Gorakhpur, had participated in the process. The Selection Committee, after interviewing the candidates, had unanimously recommended Dr.Utham Kumar Jamadhagni for appointment to the post of Lecturer and had selected Dr.M.Periakaruppu, the petitioner herein, to be kept in the waiting list. Dr.Utham Kumar Jamadhagni, the third respondent herein, had been selected purely on merits based on his academic qualifications and achievements. No malafide motive could be alleged in the selection of the third respondent, as it was on merits and the selection was made in accordance with the procedure established by law. 8. It has also been stated that the post of Lecturer has been identified for the General Turn as per the Communal Reservation rotation. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner, that the Most Backward Class was not given opportunity, is incorrect. The post for which the selection was made has been earmarked for the General Turn, in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.85, P & AR, dated 5. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner, that the Most Backward Class was not given opportunity, is incorrect. The post for which the selection was made has been earmarked for the General Turn, in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.85, P & AR, dated 5. 2000 and G.O.Ms.No.105, dated 20.6.2000. The Government of Tamil Nadu had enunciated the General Roster System by G.O.No.379 P & AR Department, dated 23. 1980 and G.O.528, dated 26. 1980. Rule No.22 of the Tamil Nadu Subordinate Service Rules, incorporates the said contents of the Government Order in which the cut off date for the purpose of applying the roster was fixed as 21. 1980. The said Government Orders were adopted by the Syndicate of the University of Madras in its resolution, dated 212. 1984, in respect of teaching posts upto the level of Lecturers in order to ensure uniform observation of the reservation policy. By G.O.No.206, P & AR Department, dated 4. 1989, the 50 point roster system was introduced by the Government. Later, the Government had introduced the 100 point Roster System by G.O.No.280, dated 18. 1992, by superseding the 50 point roster system. The said Government Order had been adopted by the Syndicate of the University in its resolution, dated 21. 1993. Therefore, all the policy decisions of the Government, made from time to time, in respect of the concept of reservation and the roster system have been continuously adopted by the University of Madras. .9. It has been further stated that in the mean time, when the University proceeded to make appointments, during the years 1990 and 1991, taking the entire University as a Unit consisting of all its Departments, it was challenged by the Madras University Teachers Association, by way of a writ petition in W.P.No.10610 of 1991, before this Court. While allowing the writ petition, this Court had held that the method followed by the University was not in accordance with law, since each Department of the University must be taken as an individual unit and the roster must be applied to each Department. The said view has also been approved by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1296 of 1991 and by the Supreme Court in SLP No.4466 of 1992. According to the Government Order in G.O.No.33, Backward Classes, Most Backward Classes and Minorities Welfare Department, dated 5. 2000, the backlog of vacancies, which arose from 4. The said view has also been approved by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1296 of 1991 and by the Supreme Court in SLP No.4466 of 1992. According to the Government Order in G.O.No.33, Backward Classes, Most Backward Classes and Minorities Welfare Department, dated 5. 2000, the backlog of vacancies, which arose from 4. 1989, were taken into account while filling up the posts. The Board had, therefore, recommended the adoption of G.O.No.85, P & AR Department dated 5. 2000 and G.O.Ms.No.105, P & AR, dated 20.6.2000, for application of the Roster System for the first time. It was approved by the Syndicate, on 7. 2000. Accordingly, 65 posts were advertised in the cadre of Lecturer, department wise, treating each department as one unit and the notification had been issued in the dailies with the approval of the authorities concerned. In such circumstances, there is no merit or substance in the writ petition filed by the petitioner. 10. In view of the averments made on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents, it is clear that the second respondent University had followed the procedures established by law, in selecting the third respondent as a Lecturer in the Department of Defence and Strategic Studies in the second respondent University. The appointment of the third respondent had been made on merits and by following the reservation policy applicable for the filling up of the said post. The selection of the third respondent has been done in accordance with the relevant Government Orders and the decision of this Court in W.P.No.10610 of 1999, as confirmed in W.A.No.1296 of 1991, with regard to the application of the roster relating to the reservation for each Department taken as an individual unit. Since the post of Lecturer in the Department of Defence and Strategic Studies was earmarked for the General Turn, the third respondent had been selected. The selection was based on merits and it cannot be said that the established procedures had not been followed in such selection. Further, the petitioner had not shown sufficient cause or reason for this Court to interfere with the impugned order of the second respondent, dated 112. 2000, appointing the third respondent as a Lecturer in the Department of Defence and Strategic Studies of the University of Madras. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.