appointment, it was mentioned that it was on a temporary basis till the appellant passed the NET Examination during the Academic Year 19931994, during the probation period. What is important here is that by the letter dated 20th January 1994, the fourth respondent–University approved the appointment of Ms S.D. Patil against the open post of lecturer. As noted earlier, Ms S.D. Patil had participated in the process on the basis of the first advertisement but she was not interested in getting employment. Under the same letter, the appointment of the fifth respondent was made for one academic year against the post reserved for the Scheduled Caste category. Thereafter, the College Administration wrote to the fourth respondent–University stating that Ms S.D. Patil had not joined and therefore, they requested for grant of approval to the appointment of the appellant. The fifth respondent never made any protest about her appointment against the post reserved for the Scheduled Caste category. In fact, pursuant to the second advertisement dated 8th September 1994, the fifth respondent again applied. Even the appellant applied. As per the advertisement, as the appellant was a PhD, the requirement of NET qualification was relaxed. It is pertinent to note here that the fifth respondent did not challenge the process that commenced on the basis of the second advertisement on the ground that against the first advertisement, she was entitled to the appointment to the open post. On the basis of the second advertisement, the Selection Committee recommended both
