Judgment :- The petitioner, presently working as a Principal in Government Arts College at Gudalur had made an application to the post of Registrar of the Central University of Tamil Nadu at Tiruvarur. An advertisement was made in the newspaper calling for applications from the eligible candidates for filling up the post of Registrar. In the notification, it was stated that the University reserves its rights not to fill up the post or invite suitable/experienced candidates through nominations and other search criteria for the interview. 2. In the notification, the post of Registrar required the following as essential qualifications:- "a. A Masters degree with at least 55% of the marks or its equivalent grade of B in the UGC seven point scale. b. At least 15 years of experience as Assistant Professor in the AGP of Rs.7000/-and above or with 8 years of service in the AGP of Rs.8000/-and above including as Associate Professor along with experience in educational administration OR c. Comparable experience in research establishment and/or other Institutions of higher education. d. 15 years of administrative experience, of which 8 years shall be as Deputy Registrar or an equivalent post." 3. In the curriculum vitae supplied in the application sent by the petitioner, it is seen that the petitioner was the Principal in a Government Arts College only from 07.09.2007. Previously, he was only a Reader in Commerce. Therefore, whether the petitioner is having the required experience as mentioned in the application form is doubtful. 4. In any event, the petitioner, apprehending that he may not be called for interview has come forward to file the present writ petition seeking for a direction not to appoint or fill up the post of Registrar pursuant to the Employment Notification dated 06.07.2009 without considering the application of the petitioner and issuing interview call letter. 5. On notice from this Court, the learned Additional Solicitor General took time to file counter. A counter affidavit dated 15.12.2009 on behalf of the Vice Chancellor-first respondent was also filed. In the counter affidavit, it was stated that under Section 44 of the Central Universities Act, 2009, the First Registrar will have to be appointed by the Visitor of the University, who is none other than the Honble President of India. A counter affidavit dated 15.12.2009 on behalf of the Vice Chancellor-first respondent was also filed. In the counter affidavit, it was stated that under Section 44 of the Central Universities Act, 2009, the First Registrar will have to be appointed by the Visitor of the University, who is none other than the Honble President of India. In accordance with the direction issued by the Ministry of Human Resources Development, a Selection Committee was constituted with the first respondent as the Chairman. The mandate for this Commmittee was to only recommend three names that too in an alphabetical order. Of the 54 names including that of the petitioner, the Screening Committee short-listed only 15 candidates for the interview and that the interview was also conducted on 14.12.2009. Recommendations of the Committee has been forwarded to the Ministry in a sealed cover for further processing. The UGC guidelines framed in respect of the post of Registrar has been duly adopted by the University and there is no deviation. As has been rightly contended by the respondents, the mandate for the Committee was to recommend only three names that too in an alphabetical order for consideration of the Honble President of India. Therefore, the petitioner has no vested right in seeking for a direction that his name should be included or he should be called for interview by the committee. 6. In these circumstances, the petitioner cannot file the present writ petition seeking for a direction either to call him for interview or to restrain them from seeking any other name. If the petitioner feels that any person who is appointed to the said post is not having the proper qualification, he can always challenge the same. But he cannot question the procedure adopted by the University in shortlisting the candidates and forwarding the names to the office of the President. In the absence of any vested right on the petitioner, the contention raised by him cannot be countenanced by this Court. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.