JUDGMENT : 1. Heard on admission. 2. This appeal is directed against order dated 11.07.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby, writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued and contended before us that the selection process adopted by Respondent No. 2-University was illegal and arbitrary being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as it comprised of interview only without there being any written examination. 4. Second submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that earlier Single Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. Sandeep Joshi & Others Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13068/2015 and other connected writ petition decided on 16.09.2016) had clearly directed Respondent No.2-University to frame and notify the recruitment rules. However, recruitment in the present case has been made without framing and notifying the recruitment rules, thereby, allowing favouritism and nepotism to have full play. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that during the pendency of the writ petition, private respondent was appointed hurriedly on the day when interviews were held and result was published. Soon thereafter, on 19.01.2018, the Secretary to the Governor, Rajasthan issued a letter to the Vice Chancellor, Jagadguru Ramanandacharya Rajasthan Sanskrit Vishwavidhyalaya directing that all pending selection process be terminated and no appointments be made. This clearly indicated that whatever appointments made were liable to be recalled and the private respondent was liable to be terminated. He would further submit that newspaper report clearly indicated that the selection of private respondent was dictated by certain politicians and there was no fairness involved in the process of selection. It is submitted that all these aspects were not duly appreciated and examined by the learned Single Judge. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for Respondents No. 1 and 2 would oppose the admission of the appeal and rely upon the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 6. Having gone through the pleadings in the writ petition, reply so filed, other affidavits and the order passed by the learned Single Judge, we do not find that this appeal merits acceptance for the reasons stated infra. 7. 6. Having gone through the pleadings in the writ petition, reply so filed, other affidavits and the order passed by the learned Single Judge, we do not find that this appeal merits acceptance for the reasons stated infra. 7. Insofar as challenge to the process of selection on the ground that it comprised of interview only and that without notifying the recruitment rules, process of selection was initiated by way of advertisement is concerned, in view of the settled legal position, the appellant is not entitled to any relief. It is well settled legal position that a candidate, having participated in the process of selection, cannot be allowed to turn around to challenge the process of selection. The facts, which are not in dispute in the present case, are that the advertisement was published on 08.12.2017. Last date for submission of applications was 30.12.2017. The advertisement clearly stated that the selection was to be made on the basis of the interview. The appellant did not raise any objection to the process of selection, rather he participated in the process of selection by submitting his application form. Not only that, the appellant, thereafter, appeared in the interview which was held on 16.01.2018. Thus, having participated in the process of selection, it is no longer open for the appellant to assail the process of selection. On that count alone, the aforesaid two submissions raised by learned counsel for the appellant are liable to be rejected. 8. The other argument that despite order issued from the Secretariat of the Governor, Rajasthan, selection process was continued and appointments were made cannot be accepted. A perusal of internal correspondence dated 19.01.2018 between the Secretary to the Governor, Rajasthan addressed to the Vice Chancellor, Jagadguru Ramanandacharya Rajasthan Sanskrit Vishwavidhyalaya reveals that the instructions were not to conduct any interview in the process of selections which were continuing. In the present case, order of appointment itself was issued on 16.01.2018. There is nothing in letter dated 19.01.2018 to make it retrospective to direct to cancel all previous selections and appointments, if any made. Therefore, the aforesaid internal correspondence, not even an order, could not be made a basis to assail the process of selection which was completed prior to issuance of the aforesaid internal correspondence dated 19.01.2018. 9. There is nothing in letter dated 19.01.2018 to make it retrospective to direct to cancel all previous selections and appointments, if any made. Therefore, the aforesaid internal correspondence, not even an order, could not be made a basis to assail the process of selection which was completed prior to issuance of the aforesaid internal correspondence dated 19.01.2018. 9. Last submission of learned counsel for the appellant that the process of selection was not fair and it was on the dictates of certain politicians, if we may say so, is bereft of specific pleadings, much less material to support such allegation. Reliance is placed on a news report which hardly constitutes any material. In the absence of specific pleadings supported by material and without impleading the Vice Chancellor or the members of the selection committee as parties, no indulgence could be made, so as to make a roving enquiry on such vague allegations of mala fides. 10. Therefore, in view of above considerations and for the reasons stated by learned Single Judge, we do not find any ground to interfere in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 11. The appeal, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed.