JUDGMENT : Dhiraj Singh Thakur, J. 1. The petitioner challenges the re-advertisement notification dated 29.05.2015, issued by the Baba Ghulam Badshah University, Rajouri qua one post of Assistant Professor in Urdu on the ground that he had already been recommended and selected by a Selection Committee, pursuant to selection initiated vide advertisement notification dated 22.07.2011. Response has been filed by the University, wherein a stand is taken that after recommendations were made by the Selection Committee pursuant to notification dated 22.07.2011, two candidates namely Mehmood Ahmed & Abdul Mehmood, who had similarly participated in the selection process with the petitioner had subsequently raised objections regarding the appointment of Dr. Aziz Abbas as a subject expert. 2. According to the representation, the said expert was Head, Department of Persian Studies and had no expertise in the subject of Urdu, therefore, could not have been so appointed. 3. It appears that representation was considered by the University Council in its meeting dated 07.03.2015, wherein, after taking in view the issue raised in the representation and also keeping in view the possibility of getting embroiled in litigation, a decision was taken to re-advertise the post of Assistant Professor in Urdu. It is precisely for this reason that the present petition has been preferred, challenging the subsequent advertisement notification dated 29.05.2015. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner - Mr. S.S. Ahmed has drawn the attention of the court to the profile of the subject expert, which forms Annexure-F to the supplementary affidavit filed by him. On a perusal of the same, it can be seen that the said subject expert was the Head, Department of Urdu & Persian, Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar and his qualification was M.A. (Persian), Ph.D. & M.A. in Urdu. 5. From a perusal of this qualification profile of the subject expert, who had done his M.A. and Ph.D. in Urdu, it is clear that he had all the attributes of being nominated as a subject expert and be associated in the selection process for selecting the candidate for the post of Assistant Professor in Urdu. 6. 5. From a perusal of this qualification profile of the subject expert, who had done his M.A. and Ph.D. in Urdu, it is clear that he had all the attributes of being nominated as a subject expert and be associated in the selection process for selecting the candidate for the post of Assistant Professor in Urdu. 6. Not only this, the said expert was also the Head, Department of Urdu & Persian in the Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar and, therefore, the University was not justified in accepting the representation filed by the two candidates, who had also participated in the process of selection but finding themselves not anywhere near the merit of the petitioner had chosen to challenge the selection process on that feeble ground. 7. Strangely enough, the University appears to have very readily agreed to the objections so raised, not on the ground that the said subject expert was lacking in qualification for the purposes of being nominated as a subject expert, but only on the apprehension that the University would be embroiled in some litigation. 8. It is settled law that a candidate having participated in the process of selection and finding himself unable to get selected cannot be permitted to turn around to challenge the process of selection. Reference in this regard can be made to Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla, AIR 1986 SC 1043 . 9. The decision of the University to re-advertise the post was, therefore, on the face of it illegal and arbitrary. 10. For the reasons mentioned in the petition, same is allowed. Advertisement notification dated 29.05.2015 qua 01 post of Assistant Professor in Urdu, issued by the Baba Ghulam Shah Badshah University, Rajouri is quashed. 11. The University shall consider the petitioner's case for appointment in terms of the recommendations made pursuant to advertisement notification dated 22.07.2011 and pass appropriate orders, preferably within a period of two months from the date, a copy of this order is made available to the University through the petitioner. 12. In view of the fact that the petitioner was denied consideration for appointment despite having been found meritorious and was dragged into the present controversy, it will be appropriate to award Rs. 25,000/- as cost to him, which shall be borne by the University. Disposed of as above along with connected MP(s).