JUDGMENT A. B. CHAUDHARI, J. :- By the present writ petition, the petitioner has sought writ of mandamus for considering him for the post of Head of the Department (Agricultural Engineering) at Dr. Punjabrao Deshmukh Krishl Vidyapeeth, Akola and other two posts mentioned in the advertisement dated 25-9-2000 and has consequently, prayed for quashing the selection and appointment of respondent No. 5 to the post of Professor of Agricultural Engineering in the said institute pursuant to the advertisement dated 25-9-2000. 2. In support of the writ petition, learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner holds Ph.D. degree from I.I.T., Kharagpur in Agricultura Engineering and was the best suitable candidate besides the fact that he wa designated as Associate Professor and had thus experience of seven years four months and twenty four days and refusal on the part of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to issue him interview call and consider him for the post mentioned in the said advertisement was wrong and illegal. He, thus, prayed for setting aside the appointment of respondent No.5, who was then selected and appointed to the said post and prayed for relief of consideration of his claim to anyone of the said posts, holding him eligible and qualified. 3. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 opposed the writ petition and argued that the petitioner was not qualified and was not Associate Professor, which is the requirement for the post of Professor as stated in the advertisement itself. He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. We have considered the submissions made before us. Looking to the nature of the relief sought in the petition, at the outset, it would be useful to find out the eligibility of the petitioner for his consideration to the post of Professor. The qualification mentioned in advertisement at Item No. V is as under: "(V) PROFESSOR: (Concerned Faculties) Ph.D. in the concerned subject plus ten years experience in the field of teaching research for education of which at least three years should be in the cadre of Associate Professor or its equivalent OR Masters' degree in the concerned subject with twelve years experience in the field of teaching, research of extension education of which at least three years should be in the cadre of Associate Professor or Reader or its equivalent." 5. Though it is true that the petitioner obtained his Ph.D. degree but he did not have either ten years experience or three years experience in the cadre of Associate Professor. The petitioner worked as Assistant Professor from 16-4-1976 till 20-3-1980, 21-3-1980 till 7-5-1984 and 17-7-1984 till 31-12-1987. He had never worked as Associate Professor nor was appointed as such. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the Government Resolution dated 20-3-1997 and contended that by virtue of the said Resolution, the petitioner stood designated as Associate Professor and therefore, he was required to be treated as Associate Professor with the experience of more than seven years and at any rate above three years. 7. We have carefully perused the said Government Resolution dated 20-31997 (Annexure - B) to the petition and we find that Resolution specifically provides for the following in Item No. iv. "(iv) Only because the name of Associate Professor has been given, the Assistant Professors of the Select Grade, holding P.H.D., shall not be able to claim for the post of Professor." 8. The aforesaid stipulation in clause (iv) thus clearly shows that though the petitioner was designated as Associate Professor, in fact, that was not to be considered for considering the claim for the post of Professor. That being so, we find that the petitioner merely remained to be Assistant Professor and did not qualify for the post of Professor, which is the claim in the present writ petition. The petitioner, thus, was not eligible to be considered for the post in question for want of requisite qualification as Associate Professor. In the result, we find no merit in the present writ petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed.