ORDER : V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. CM No. 20317/2015 1. This is an application filed by the petitioner for restoration of the petition, which was withdrawn by the counsel for the petitioner on August 7, 2015. 2. This court while issuing notice on this application on March 31, 2016 noted the contents of the application and observed that the petitioner apart from seeking recall of order dated August 7, 2015 is praying that the writ petition be heard on merit to serve the ends of justice. It is the case of the petitioner / applicant in the application that before withdrawing the writ petition, his counsel Mr. Uday Gupta had not taken/sought his instructions/permission to withdraw the same. Mr. Uday Gupta, earlier counsel of the petitioner has filed an affidavit stating the writ petition was withdrawn with the instructions of the petitioner as per the record maintained by his office. In other words, he denied, the writ petition was withdrawn by him without the instructions. In the response filed by the petitioner to the affidavit of Mr. Uday Gupta, Adv. he controverts the stand taken by Mr. Uday Gupta. Suffice to state even the respondent nos.1 and 2 have in their reply contested the maintainability of the application stating that the application in substance being for review needs to be rejected, as there is no apparent error on the face of the record. 3. Without going into the issue, whether the writ petition was rightly withdrawn on August 7, 2015 by Mr. Uday Gupta, under instructions from the petitioner or not, I have heard in detail the petitioner who appears in person and Mr. A.P.S. Ahluwalia, learned Sr. Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 on the writ petition. 4. It is noted from the writ petition, the petitioner is M.Sc (Physics) and Ph.D (Physics) and had joined the Daulat Ram College in the Department of Physics in January, 2000. In August, 2000, he joined the Deshbandhu College, Kalkaji as a Guest Lecturer where he continued to work till March, 2001. From December 1, 2000 to March 30, 2001, he was a part time Lecturer in the Department of Physics in Sri Venkateswara College. Similarly, between December 12, 2001 to March, 2007 he joined the Atma Ram Sanatan Dharam College, Delhi as a Guest Lecturer. He joined respondent no. From December 1, 2000 to March 30, 2001, he was a part time Lecturer in the Department of Physics in Sri Venkateswara College. Similarly, between December 12, 2001 to March, 2007 he joined the Atma Ram Sanatan Dharam College, Delhi as a Guest Lecturer. He joined respondent no. 1 / College on August 18, 2007 as Lecturer on ad hoc basis in the Department of Physics. It is his case that on December 27, 2007, guidelines were issued by the University for making ad hoc appointment of Lecturers in Colleges / Departments of the University. Petitioner Dr. Prithvi Nath Pandey, has drawn my attention to the various communications written by the Dean of Colleges, University of Delhi; Deputy Registrar (Colleges), University of Delhi to different colleges including respondent no.1 / Moti Lal Nehru College that the guidelines dated December 27, 2007 are to be applied prospectively and the petitioner is not covered by the guidelines and he may be considered at par with other teachers working in the College. He would further state that he continued to work as Lecturer (Ad hoc) in the respondent no.1/College till June 7, 2011, which date coincides with the last date of the academic session. Dr. Pandey would submit that the new session had started in July, 2011. The respondent no.1 / College did not permit him to join as Lecturer on ad hoc basis on the ground that the petitioner’s case was covered by the guidelines dated December 27, 2007 and also that he had not been selected. He would refer to the communication dated July 20, 2011 of the Deputy Registrar (Colleges), University of Delhi issuing clarification to the colleges that the guidelines dated December 27, 2007 were meant to be implemented prospectively. On July 29, 2011, the Deputy Registrar (Colleges) wrote to the Principal of the respondent no.1 / College stating that the College had not acted in terms of the clarifications dated July 15, 2010 and July 20, 2011 vis-à-vis the petitioner. The College was directed to act in accordance with the clarifications issued by the University. Dr. Pandey has laid stress on a communication dated August 4, 2011 of the Deputy Registrar (Colleges) to the Principal of respondent no.1 / College stating that the College has appointed three teachers in Physics, who had worked during the last academic year except Dr. The College was directed to act in accordance with the clarifications issued by the University. Dr. Pandey has laid stress on a communication dated August 4, 2011 of the Deputy Registrar (Colleges) to the Principal of respondent no.1 / College stating that the College has appointed three teachers in Physics, who had worked during the last academic year except Dr. P.N. Pandey, which negates the claim of the College that a decision was taken to have a fresh panel in Physics for appointment of teachers on ad hoc basis. According to Dr. Pandey there was no requirement for the College to constitute a Selection Committee for continuance of his services as Lecturer on ad hoc basis at the starting of the fresh academic year. In other words, his engagement should have been continued automatically. Dr. Pandey would also submit that despite a directive from the Chairman of the Governing Body, he was not appointed. He states that a representation and a legal notice got issued on his behalf. He received a vague reply of the college through its Counsel on the legal notice. 5. On the other hand, Mr. A.P.S. Ahluwalia, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 would concede to the period of working of the petitioner in the respondent no.1 / College. According to him, petitioner continued to work in the College on ad hoc basis till June 7, 2011. He stated, for further continuance as ad hoc Lecturer, a Committee was constituted which comprised of the Principal, Incharge of the Department and senior most Member of the Department by rotation for selecting best suitable candidates to act as ad hoc Lecturers in various subjects. In July, 2011, many candidates including the petitioner were invited for interview in the Department of Physics. The Selection Committee had placed the petitioner at serial No.8 and as such could not be appointed. He stated, there were numerous complaints against the petitioner from the students and his colleagues for his acts of misconduct and omission on account of which it had become very difficult to continue with the ad hoc services of the petitioner. The Selection Committee did not agree to the name of the petitioner and therefore the services of the petitioner could not be continued. The Selection Committee did not agree to the name of the petitioner and therefore the services of the petitioner could not be continued. He states, even if the guidelines were not applicable to the case of the petitioner, yet it was the prerogative of the Selection Committee to select suitable candidates for the benefit of the students and for the cohesive and harmonious atmosphere in the College. He stated, the College authorities had been warning the petitioner in the past to mend his ways and not to create problems by misguiding the students or provoking them. He stated there were complaints by the students against the petitioner that he does not hold the classes, yet the respondent no.1 / College continued to give him chances in the hope that the petitioner would mend his ways. He stated the decision of the Selection Committee in this back ground cannot be faulted. He also stated, petitioner’s engagement was discontinued in the month of July, 2011 whereas a petition has been filed by the petitioner in February, 2014 which shows that the petitioner chose to remain silent and quiet and did not approach the Court for redressal of his grievances. On the applicability of the guidelines dated December 27, 2007, it is his case that the petitioner was covered by the same and was required to appear before the panel / Selection Committee duly constituted by the College for the purpose of the selection. He would rely upon the following three judgments in support his contentions, that the petitioner having appeared in the selection, cannot challenge the same on the ground, the same was contrary to the guidelines. 1. State of U.P. and Ors. v. Rekha Rani, III (2011) SLT 105 2. Madras Institute of Development Studies and Anr. v. K. Sivasubramaniyan and Ors., (2016) 1 SCC 454 3. NTPC Kahalagaon and Ors. v. Nakul Das and Ors., VIII (2014) SLT 54 6. Having heard the petitioner and Mr. A.P.S. Ahluwalia, there is no dispute to the fact that the petitioner joined the respondent no.1 / College as ad hoc Lecturer in Physics on August 18, 2007 and continued to work on the said post till June 7, 2011. The question which falls for consideration is whether respondent no.1 / College had rightly not engaged the petitioner as Lecturer (ad hoc) w.e.f July, 2011. 7. The question which falls for consideration is whether respondent no.1 / College had rightly not engaged the petitioner as Lecturer (ad hoc) w.e.f July, 2011. 7. The plea of the petitioner is primarily by relying on the guidelines dated December 27, 2007 and the same relates to issue of making ad hoc appointment of Lecturers in Colleges / Departments. The guidelines contemplate that the appointment of ad hoc Lecturers shall be made from a panel drawn by the respective Departments after inviting applications twice a year. The panel shall be drawn by a committee consisting of Head of the respective Department and four teachers of the Department keeping in mind the principle of seniority on rotation of two years. The ad hoc panel prepared by the Department shall be displayed on the website. The guidelines contemplate, the College concerned may interview the candidates listed in the panel sent by the University through a duly constituted Selection Committee. It also contemplates that the ad hoc appointments need to be made in case there is sudden unexpected short vacancy arising out of the sudden sickness or death, abrupt leave or any other situation that may disrupt the normal process of teaching / learning. It also contemplates that ad hoc appointments should be made where the vacancy arises for a period of less than 1 month. The ad hoc appointment shall also be made for a period of more than one month and up to four months and a vacancy which arises for the duration of more than 4 months shall be filled up on temporary basis. The submission of Dr. Pandey that it is the consistent stand of the University through its Dean and Deputy Registrar (Colleges) that the said guidelines were not applicable to the case of the petitioner as he was an ad hoc appointee of August, 2007, i.e., prior to the issuance of the guidelines and the services of the petitioner as ad hoc Lecturer should have continued automatically in the fresh academic session and could not have been assessed by a Selection Committee as has been done in his case, is appealing on a first blush, but on a consideration of the submissions made by Mr. Ahluwalia and the judgments relied upon by him that the petitioner having appeared before the Selection Committee for being assessed and having failed to get himself selected by the Selection Committee and as such precluded from challenging his discontinuance is justified. In other words, the petitioner having appeared before the Selection Committee cannot challenge the very same process to which he has submitted himself. Mr. Ahluwalia is also justified in relying upon the judgments referred to above in the cases of Rekha Rani (supra), Madras Institute of Development Studies and Anr. (supra) and NTPC Kahalagaon and Ors. (supra) wherein the Supreme Court has consistently held that the persons who have duly participated in the selection process but could not make their mark and failed to get selected have no right to raise any grievance with regard to the very same process to which they have agreed to. I further note, not only the petitioner there are other candidates who were called for the interview, who fared better and were appointed as Lecturers on ad hoc basis. The action of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in not re-engaging the petitioner in the new academic session cannot be faulted. That apart, the respondents have highlighted the conduct and the complaints made by the students and also the colleagues of the petitioner which possibly had caused the Selection Committee to place him at serial no.8 of the panel appears to be justified. In view of above, I must hold the writ petition filed by the petitioner was without merit. In view of my above conclusion, the application being C.M. No. 20317/2015 for recalling of order dated August 7, 2015 filed by the petitioner does not survive for consideration.