Dhiraj Singh Thakur, CJ.

1. The present Writ Appeal, under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, has been preferred against the judgment and order, dated 19.06.2014, passed in W.P.No.6463 of 2012.

2. Briefly stated, the material facts are as under:

                  A notification, dated 09.02.2012, came to be issued by the Sub- Collector/ Revenue Divisional Officer, Parvathipuram Division, Parvathipuram, Vizianagaram District, inviting applications from the eligible candidates for appointment of a fair price shop dealer for shop No.15 of Salur Town, Vizianagaram District. According to the notifications so issued, the selection was to be based upon a written examination consisting of 50 marks and oral interview which also would carry 50 marks.

3. The petitioner, considering herself eligible, applied pursuant to the said notification. She is stated to have appeared in the written test conducted on 26.02.2012 and secured 50 out of 50 marks. She is also stated to have appeared in the interview on 27.02.2012 but was not declared successful. In the aforementioned backdrop, the petitioner vide W.P.No.6463 of 2012 challenged the selection process and also G.O.Ms.No.4, Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies (CS.I) Department, dated 19.02.2011, to the extent it prescribed 50 marks for the interview on the ground that the same were excessive.

4. By virtue of the judgment and order impugned, the writ petition was dismissed by the learned single Judge holding that the petitioner having taken a calculated chance in the selection process was estopped in law from challenging the same.

                  Reliance in this regard was placed upon judgments rendered by the Apex Court in the cases of Madan Lal and others Vs. State of J & K and others(1986 (Supp) SCC 285), Ramesh Chandra Shah and others Vs. Anil Joshi and others(AIR 2013 SC 1613)I and Union of India and another Vs. N. Chandrasekhran and others((1998) 3 SCC 694) with a view to support and buttress the aforementioned proposition of law.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant challenges the judgment and order impugned on the ground that the learned single Judge had failed to notice that G.O.Ms.No.4 of 2011 had earlier been the subject matter of challenge in W.P.No.3553 of 2012 & batch, which was decided on 24.02.2012, in which the direction which was issued by the learned single Judge was as under:

                  “8. I, therefore, consider it appropriate to direct the State Government, the 1st respondent herein, to review the policy guidelines formulated by it, in particular Paragraph 2 of the Annexure to the G.O.Ms.No.4, dated 19.02.2011, by appropriately fixing the maximum marks for the oral interview test and communicate the said decision to all the appointing authorities within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till the revised guidelines in this regard are formulated and communicated by the State Government, no selection of dealers be finalized by the respective appointing authorities.”

                  Needless to say that the issue that was being considered by the learned single Judge in the aforementioned case was also regarding the excessive 50% marks that had been prescribed for the interview.

6. The learned single Judge in the judgment supra had placed reliance upon the Apex Court judgment rendered in the case of Lila Dhar Vs. State of Rajasthan (AIR 1981 SC 1777) to emphasize the point that while both written examination and interview test were essential features for a proper selection, prescribing 50 marks for the interview test confer an exaggerated weightage for purposes of making selection.

                  It was in those circumstances that the directions in paragraph No.8 of the judgment reproduced hereinabove came to be passed.

7. The argument of learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that even when there was a specific direction by the Court in W.P.No.3553 of 2012 & batch that till revised guidelines were formulated and communicated by the State Government, no selection of dealers could be finalized by the respective appointing authorities, the official respondents proceeded to finalize the selection of dealers contrary to the judgment and order, dated 24.02.2012.

8. It is not out of place here to mention that according to the counter affidavit filed by the official respondents, while the applications for the said Fair Price Shop were received between 09.02.2012 and 22.02.2012, the written examination was conducted on 25.02.2012 for 50 marks and interview was conducted on 26.02.2012 which too carried 50 marks in accordance with the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.4 of 2011.

9. The selection process was thus not only continued by the official respondents after the judgment was rendered in W.P.No.3553 of 2012 & batch but was even finalized contrary to the mandate of the said judgment.

                  Not only this, the G.O.Ms.No.4 of 2011 also was the subject matter of challenge in W.P.No.7022 of 2013 & batch, which batch of petitions came to be allowed and the said G.O. was quashed by virtue of judgment and order, dated 04.04.2013, holding the allocation of 50 marks for interview to be unsustainable and contrary to the judgments rendered by the Apex Court in the cases of Nishi Mughu Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir(AIR 1980 SC 1975) and Ajay Hasia Vs. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi(AIR 1981 SC 487).

10. It is in the aforementioned backdrop that the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the selection process ought not to have been carried forward at all and even if it was done, the same would be non-est in the eyes of law.

11. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, would submit that the appellant having participated and taken a chance in the selection process would be estopped in law from challenging the said selection process.

                  Reliance in this regard was yet again placed upon the judgments rendered by the Apex Court in the cases of Madan Lal (1 supra), Ramesh Chandra Shah (2 supra) and N. Chandrasekhran (3 supra).

12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

                  In the ordinary circumstances, there would be no difficulty for us to hold that the appellant having responded to the advertisement notification, dated 09.02.2012, and having taken a chance in the selection process would be estopped in law from challenging the very said selection process. However, in the instant case, it can be seen that the official respondents had proceeded to carry forward the selection process and finalize the same despite clear directions issued by the learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.3553 of 2012 & batch.

13. The entire process of selection and appointment of the candidate would thus be rendered non-est in law. We, in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot uphold any such selection process which runs contrary to the directions issued by a constitutional Court.

14. Be that as it may, we allow the present Writ Appeal and set aside the judgment and order impugned, dated 19.06.2014, and direct the respondents to initiate a fresh process of selection by fixing such marks for the interview in accordance with the criteria fixed pursuant to the directions issued in the judgment, dated 04.04.2013, rendered in W.P.No.7022 of 2013 & batch. No costs.

                  Consequently, connected miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.