Appointment Made in Defiance of Judicial Orders Cannot Be Upheld: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Fair Price Shop Selection for Violating Court Mandate

“The entire process of selection and appointment… is rendered non-est in law” , In a significant ruling safeguarding judicial authority and procedural fairness in public appointments, the Andhra Pradesh High Court quashed the appointment of a Fair Price Shop (FPS) dealer in Vizianagaram district, holding that the selection process violated binding judicial directions and was non-est in law. The Division Bench of Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Ravi Cheemalapati setting aside the judgment of the Single Judge which had dismissed her writ petition on grounds of estoppel.

At the heart of the dispute lay G.O.Ms.No.4 dated 19.02.2011, which allocated 50% marks to oral interviews in the FPS dealer selection process. Despite a prior judicial direction restraining authorities from finalising any selections until revised criteria were framed, the State proceeded to conclude the selection under the same invalidated guidelines—a move the Court found directly violative of constitutional judicial authority.

“A Selection Process in Violation of Judicial Direction is Non-Est”: Court Censures State's Disregard for Earlier Order

The case had its origins in a notification dated 09.02.2012, inviting applications for the appointment of an FPS dealer for Shop No.15, Salur Town, Vizianagaram District. The appellant secured full marks (50/50) in the written exam conducted on 25.02.2012, but was not selected after an interview held the very next day, where she evidently did not fare as well.

Crucially, this selection was finalised after a categorical direction issued by the High Court in W.P. No. 3553 of 2012 & batch, where the learned Single Judge had observed:

“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.” [Para 5]

However, as the Court noted in the present judgment:

“The official respondents had proceeded to carry forward the selection process and finalize the same despite clear directions… The entire process of selection and appointment… would thus be rendered non-est in law.” [Para 12–13]

This violation, the Bench held, stripped the selection of any legal sanctity, and no court exercising powers under Article 226 could sustain such an act done in defiance of its own judicial order.

Doctrine of Estoppel No Shield for Authorities Acting in Breach of Law

The Single Judge had earlier dismissed the appellant’s writ petition—W.P. No. 6463 of 2012—on the ground that having participated in the selection process, the appellant was estopped from questioning its validity. This doctrine was supported by precedents including Madan Lal v. State of J&K and Ramesh Chandra Shah v. Anil Joshi.

However, the Division Bench clarified that while this principle holds in ordinary circumstances, it cannot be invoked where the selection process is vitiated by illegality, especially in violation of binding court orders.

“Estoppel has no application where selection is vitiated by illegality and conducted contrary to express judicial directions. Rule of estoppel cannot legitimise an act that is void in law.” [Paras 12–13]

The Court thus decisively differentiated between a calculated chance taken within a lawful process and a process that was itself tainted by disregard for judicial mandates.

Excessive Weightage to Interview Already Declared Illegal in Parallel Proceedings

Adding to the illegality, the same G.O.Ms.No.4 of 2011, which formed the basis of the selection criteria, had been quashed in a separate batch of writ petitions—W.P. No.7022 of 2013 & batch, decided on 04.04.2013—for prescribing an excessive 50 marks to the interview.

Relying on the Supreme Court decisions in Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan, Nishi Mughu v. State of J&K and Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi, the Court had held that allocating half the total marks to an interview was arbitrary and violative of Article 14.

The Bench reiterated this conclusion, noting:

“The G.O. was quashed… holding the allocation of 50 marks for interview to be unsustainable and contrary to the judgments rendered by the Apex Court.” [Para 9]

Thus, the selection not only defied a judicial stay on finalisation but also continued under a scheme already held unconstitutional.

Court Orders Fresh Selection Under Revised Guidelines

Setting aside the impugned judgment of the Single Judge dated 19.06.2014, the Court allowed the writ appeal and directed the State to conduct a fresh selection for the said FPS dealer post, in accordance with the revised criteria laid down in W.P. No.7022 of 2013 & batch.

“We… 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… dated 04.04.2013.” [Para 14]

The appeal was thus allowed, with no order as to costs, and all pending applications closed.

 “Court Cannot Uphold Appointments Made in Contempt of Judicial Orders”

This judgment is a clear affirmation of judicial supremacy over executive actions, particularly in service-related selections where procedural fairness and constitutional compliance are paramount.

By holding that “we cannot uphold any such selection process which runs contrary to the directions issued by a constitutional Court”, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has sent a strong message—judicial orders are not suggestions; they are binding commands, and executive defiance will nullify any resultant administrative action.

“Estoppel cannot sanctify what is illegal”—Andhra Pradesh High Court sets aside selection made under quashed G.O. and in violation of judicial directions

Date of Decision: January 30, 2026