K. Narayana Kurup, J.

The petitioner is an Assistant Executive Engineer working in the Engineering Department of the 1st respondent University, viz., the Cochin University Science & Technology, Kochi. The post of Assistant Executive Engineer is an isolated post having no promotional avenue. The 1st respondent as per Ext. P1 notification dated 27.8.1998 invited applications for appointment to the post of University Engineer and Technical Officer (Executive Engineer). Pursuant to Ext. P1 application, the petitioner applied for appointment to the post of Technical Officer for which an interview was conducted on 27.11.1998 on which date the petitioner came to know that the post of Technical Officer is a reserved one. Accordingly, the very next day she submitted Ext. P2 representation to the 1st respondent University pointing out the illegality of making any reservation to the post of Technical Officer and requesting them to make appointment to the cadre of Technical Officer on the basis of merit. It was also submitted by her that there is no avenue of promotion from the post of Assistant Executive Engineer which she presently holds and therefore the appointment to the post of Technical Officer should have been made by promotion from among the qualified Assistant Executive Engineers. Since Ext. P2 did not elicit any response and apprehending that her request will not be acceded to she moved this Court with the present Writ Petition seeking to declare that Ext. P1 notification to the extent it provides that the appointments will be subject to the rules of communal reservation and rotation as provided for in S.7(2) of the Cochin University of Science & Technology Act, 1986, for short 'the Act', collectively comprising each category illegal and for the issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the 1st respondent University to make appointments to the category of the Technical Officer (Executive Engineer) on the basis of merit without applying any rules of reservation and for other incidental reliefs.

2. The 1st respondent University filed a statement contending, inter-alia: that the post of Technical Officer is not a single cadre post, whereas it is a post classified in the category of Class I Officers, if the post of Technical Officer is considered as a single cadre post, that will deprive the benefit of reservation contemplated by the Act and its First Statute, the petitioner having participated in the selection process is estopped from challenging the mode of recruitment contemplated by Ext. P1 pursuant to which the selection was made, that there is express waiver of the petitioner's right to challenge the validity of Ext. P1 notification and since the petitioner has failed to challenge the constitutional validity of S.7(2) of the Act has forfeited her right to get any relief in the Original Petition. Later, the University has filed a counter affidavit reiterating its contention in the earlier statement and adding further in paragraph 8 that "one P. Ajithkumar was ranked below the petitioner has joined duty on the forenoon of 2.1.1999 since the Rule of Reservation was applied and his appointment is made subject to the result of this Writ Petition". The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit stating that by reserving the post of Technical Officer, 100% reservation in respect of that post was made, that in Ext. P1 notification the post of Technical Officer was not shown as reserved for any particular class or persons which is contrary to the earlier practice as borne out by Exts. P3. and P4, that the possibility of the post of Executive Engineer being reserved came to her knowledge only when she participated in the interview on 27.11.1998, there is no estoppel against statute and therefore the petitioner is well justified in challenging Ext. P1 notification and S.7(2) of the Act only makes the rule for reservation applicable, and the unconstitutionality is in implementing the reservation contrary to law declared by the Sup