4. The aforesaid submission is however denied by learned counsel for the respondent No.1/GGSIU who appears on advance copy and states that the present petition is not only bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, namely, the two candidates who have already been selected by the respondent No.1/GGSIU to the posts of Assistant Professor (Chemical Technology), but it is even otherwise liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches for the reason that the interview process for the said post was over in the months of September-October 2013 and the petitioner has chosen to approach this court quite belatedly after a lapse of eleven months. 5. On merits, it is stated by learned counsel for the respondent No.1/GGSIU that out of the 36 posts of Assistant Professor (Chemical Technology) advertised by the respondent No.1/GGSIU, eleven posts were reserved for SC category, but only six posts were filled up, while five posts are lying vacant; all the eight posts reserved for the ST category, have been filled up and out of seventeen posts reserved for the OBC category, seven posts have been filled up while ten posts are lying vacant. He submits that if the main grievance of the petitioner is that the legal notice dated 8.1.2014 issued on her behalf has not been replied to by the respondent No.1/GGSIU, it shall reply to the same within four weeks from today.
