1. Petitioner applied for the post of Senior Horticulture Technician under Scheduled Caste category, in terms of advertisement notice no. 6 of 2005 issued by respondent no.2, but he was not selected. He has challenged the selection of private respondents through the medium of present writ petition. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that having a degree of Bachelor of Science in Horticulture from Dr. Yaswant Singh Parmar University of Horticulture & Forestry Solan (Himachal Pradesh), and belonging to the Scheduled Caste category, he applied for the post of Senior Horticulture Technician in terms of advertisement notice dated 21.11.2005. It is contended that respondent no.2 accepted the applications of those of the candidates also who was not having the requisite qualification i.e. Degree in B.Sc. Horticulture or B.Sc. Agriculture with Horticulture as a major subject. It has been further contended that respondent no.2 has not published the criteria adopted for the short listing of the candidates. 3. The stand of the respondent no.2, Services Selection Board, on the other hand is that candidature of the petitioner was considered along with other candidates in Scheduled Caste category, but while short listing the candidates for interview by taking the ratio of 1:5, the petitioner could not make his grade as he secured only 32.1 points whereas the last short listed candidate in Scheduled Caste category secured 46.26 points. It is further contended that petitioner never challenged the short listing criteria and has approached this Court only to challenge the final selection, in which he was not considered at all. It has been further contended that after having participated in the selection process the petitioner cannot be allowed to challenge the selection process. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5. Selection process for Sr. Horticulture Technician was initiated by respondent no.2 by inviting applications in different categories. The petitioner applied in scheduled caste category. His application was accepted, but when the candidates were short listed, he could not make his grade, as such, was not called for the interview. He has not challenged the short listing criteria or the process of selection, however, he has filed this writ petition only to challenge the selection of the private respondents. 6. His application was accepted, but when the candidates were short listed, he could not make his grade, as such, was not called for the interview. He has not challenged the short listing criteria or the process of selection, however, he has filed this writ petition only to challenge the selection of the private respondents. 6. It be noted here that petitioner has applied for the post advertised under the scheduled caste category, as such, he cannot challenge the selection of candidates who have been selected in other categories. 7. In so far as the contention of the petitioner that candidates not possessing the requisite qualification have been considered and selected, is concerned, it be noted that following qualification was necessary for a candidate to apply for the post:- "B. Sc. Horticulture or B.Sc. Agriculture with Horticulture as major subject." 8. All the selected candidates, as per the respondents are possessed of B. Sc. Agriculture and M. Sc. Agriculture. Insofar as the contention of the petitioner, that private respondents were not having Horticulture as a major subject in their studies, is concerned, the respondent no.2 has relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court delivered in case Gh. Ahmad Malik v. State and others, reported as 2006 (3) JKJ 64 [HC], where the issue had been dealt in detail. The Division Bench has observed as under:- "From the conspectus of facts appearing from the records, it come out that the majority of the candidates including the petitioners did not possess requisite certificates indicating their having studied Horticulture during their course if studies of B. Sc. Agriculture. It was brought to our notice that in come Universities, there was no practice of indicating in the marks-sheets as to whether or not the candidates had studied Horticulture during their course of studies of B. Sc. Agriculture and as to whether or not the Horticulture was one of the major subjects during their course of studies. It is further appears that both sets of candidates i.e. successful and unsuccessful candidates, were not possessed of such certificates indicating their having studied Horticulture as one of the subjects which appears to have necessitated the holding of screening test by the Commission to find out as to whether the candidates had studies Horticulture as major subject during their course of studies of B. Sc. Agriculture. 9. Agriculture. 9. It cannot be lost sight of that all the candidates had taken the screening test without any objection or reservation and all those who had cleared the screening test after having been found to have studied Horticulture as major subject on the syllabus prescribed by the Commission for having the requisite knowledge of Horticulture, had appeared in the final selection process of interview. The unsuccessful candidates cannot, thus, be permitted to criticize and take advantage of the course adopted by the Commission in holding screening test for determining their knowledge of Horticulture. Those who had remained unsuccessful in the screening test, having not questioned the selection and appointment of the appellants as Horticulture Development Officers. The writ petitioners, in our view, do not have any legitimate grievance to the holding of screening test, which the Commission had undertaken because it was unable to find out from the testimonials of the candidates as to whether or not they had studied Horticulture as one of the major subjects during their course of studies." 10. The other aspect of the matter is that the petitioner has willfully appeared in the selection process without questioning the advertisement and the selection process. He cannot be permitted to challenge the selection after he has participated in the same. I am fortified in taking this view from a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled Dhananjay Malik and Ors v. State of Uttaranchal and ors, reported as ( 2008) 4 Supreme Court Cases 171, where their lordships have held as under:- "It is not disputed that the respondent-writ petitioners herein participated in the process of selection knowing fully well that the educational qualification was clearly indicated in the advertisement itself as BPE ore graduate, with diploma in Physical Education. Having unsuccessfully participated in the process of selection without any demur they are estopped from challenging the selection criterion inter alia that the advertisement and selection with regard to requisite educational qualifications were contrary to the Rules." 11. For all what has been said above, I find no force in this writ petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed.