By the Court.—This petition assails the selection and award of dealership of L.P.G. by the Indian Oil Corporation at Ramkola, District Kushinagar in favour of the respondent No. 3 and for quashing of the order dated 7.5.2012.

2. The category is open, and for women. The advertisement was earlier issued on 29.12.1997 followed by a fresh advertisement on 24.8.2000. The petitioner and the respondent No. 3 were both applicants alongwith other female category candidates. The first assessment and interview in respect of the candidature aforesaid took place when the interview was held on 19.6.2007 by the Selection Committee. The Selection Committee, however, put the results in abeyance and referred the matter to the Screening Committee. The Screening Committee again conducted an interview on 24.1.2008, but the outcome thereof was not approved by the competent authority.

3. The petitioner claims that she was placed at serial No. 1 in the empanellment so drawn but when the matter came up before the final authority, namely, the respondent No. 1, an order was passed on 3.7.2009 to the effect that the interviews conducted and the marks awarded were not in accordance with the guidelines and in view of the discrepancy which also indicated a 5% difference of marks between the candidates, inter se, a fresh interview was directed to be held by the said authority vide order dated 3.7.2009.

4. It is to be noted at this juncture that one of the candidates Gayatri Rao had filed Writ Petition No. 26406 of 2008 and another candidate Mamta Pathak had filed Writ Petition No. 35948 of 2009. The aforesaid two writ petitions were disposed of on 21.12.2010 by the following final orders :

“In both these petitions the questions involved are similar and therefore, both of them are being disposed of by this common order.

The present petitions have been filed with the grievance that the case of the petitioners who had applied for LPG distributorship in Ramkolas, District Kushinagar pursuant to the advertisements, has not been considered in its proper perspective.

Learned counsel for the respondents Sri Sanjeev Singh now submits that fresh interviews are to be held and the claim of the petitioners will also be considered. Sri Singh further submits that the claims of the parties would be considered as per the norms or the policy existing at the time of issuance of the advertisements. That being so, we do not perceive the petitioners having any grievance since their cases will also be considered again.

In this view of the matter, this petition is disposed of that the claim of the petitioners will also be considered while holding fresh interview pursuant to the advertisements.”

5. A special leave petition against the same appears to have been filed by Mamta Pathak, but the same has been ultimately dismissed on 30.9.2013 on the ground of the subsequent developments that intervened, leaving it open to the appellant therein to take recourse to the appropriate procedure in accordance with law including a civil suit.

6. It appears that pursuant to the direction of the High Court dated 21.12.2010 a fresh interview was held on 16.3.2011 in which the respondent No. 3 was empanelled as the first candidate entitled for award of dealership. At this stage two writ petitions were filed, one by Gayatri Rao being Writ Petition No. 22827 of 2011 and the other by the petitioner Reeta Singh being Writ Petition No. 23330 of 2011. The petition of Reeta Singh was disposed of on 22.4.2011 and that of Gayatri Rao noticing the same on 11.5.2011 directing the authorities to decide the matter in relation to the objections of the empanelment dated 16.3.2011 simultaneously. These two judgments have been filed alongwith the writ petition and the counter-affidavit of the respondent No. 3. A perusal of both the judgments would indicate that the writ petitions were disposed of for considering the grievance of both the petitioners. However, in the order dated 22.4.2011 the operative part a