Judgment Bhaskar Bhattacharya, CJ.—This Letters Patent Appeal is at the instance of an unsuccessful writ-petitioner and is directed against an order dated 30th May 2013 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 9061 of 2013 by which His Lordship dismissed Special Civil Application filed by the present appellant wherein he challenged the selection of the Respondent No. 6 to the post of Legal Officer for the District of Banaskantha. 2. Being dissatisfied, the writ-petitioner has come up with the present appeal. 3. There is no dispute that in the process of selection, the appellant, along with the Respondent No. 6 and some other candidates appeared at the interview for the post concerned and the name of the appellant figured at Sl. No. 2 of the merit list whereas the name of the Respondent No. 6 figured at the top. Consequently, the Respondent No. 6 was given the appointment. 4. According to the appellant, in the advertisement for the post concerned, it was specifically stated that the candidate must have experience as a Legal Practitioner for 5 years and when the applicant is an Advocate of a subordinate court to the High Court, the Registrar of the concerned District Court or the City Civil Court should certify such fact. The grievance of the appellant is that the Respondent No. 6 annexed a certificate of the Registrar of the District Court indicating that the Respondent No. 6 was enrolled in the year 2004 and was practicing in the said District. The said certificate, however, was issued in the year 2006 and, therefore, at the time of filing the application pursuant to the advertisement in the year 2012, the Respondent No. 6 could not disclose his requisite qualification by production of the certificate required and on that ground alone, his candidature was liable to be rejected. 4.1 The appellant next contended that according to the resolution taken by the selecting authority, the selection committee should consist of the following members:— 1. District Collector 2. District Development Officer 3. District Superintendent of Police 4. District Government Pleader 4.2 However, according to the appellant, in the interview committee, instead of District Superintendent of Police, a Deputy Superintendent of Police participated and similarly, instead of District Development Officer, somebody else of inferior post, on his behalf, took the interview and gave the marks. District Collector 2. District Development Officer 3. District Superintendent of Police 4. District Government Pleader 4.2 However, according to the appellant, in the interview committee, instead of District Superintendent of Police, a Deputy Superintendent of Police participated and similarly, instead of District Development Officer, somebody else of inferior post, on his behalf, took the interview and gave the marks. The appellant contends that the aforesaid constitution of the selection committee was per se illegal and on that ground also, the entire selection process should be held to be without jurisdiction 5. In the affidavit filed by the State-respondent, the above allegation has not been specifically disputed but it has been merely alleged that such allegation has not been proved. 6. As regards the certificate given by the Registrar of the District Court, it appears that the Respondent No. 6 was enrolled on 22nd July 2004 and the certificate was given in the year 2006, and thus, there was no scope of giving any certificate that the Respondent No. 6 was practicing for the last 5 years in the year 2006 and there was no materials available to show that the Respondent No. 6 continued his practice in law beyond the year 2006. 7. The Respondent No. 6, however, annexed a fresh certificate dated 28th June 2013 before this Court showing that he has been practicing from the date of his enrollment. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the aforesaid material, we find substance in the contention of the petitioner that the District Superintendent of Police and the District Development Officer did not participate in the process of selection as would appear from the signature itself appearing on the mark-sheet prepared at the time of interview. The state-Respondent, in its affidavit, did not assert that those were signed by the District Superintendent of Police or the District Development Officer. On the other hand, Ms. Desai, the learned Assistant Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the State tried to convince us that the petitioner having participated in the process of selection, now cannot challenge the legality of the constitution of the committee. We are afraid, we are not impressed by such submission. On the other hand, Ms. Desai, the learned Assistant Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the State tried to convince us that the petitioner having participated in the process of selection, now cannot challenge the legality of the constitution of the committee. We are afraid, we are not impressed by such submission. There is no material placed in the affidavit that it was made known to all that the selection committee had been reconstituted as such and that it was within the knowledge of the appellant that the persons taking interview were not the District Superintendent of Police and the District Development Officer respectively. Thus, even though he had participated in the process, he has every right to challenge the constitution of the committee as it is against the resolution passed by the State Government. 9. Similarly, we also find substance in the contention of the appellant that the Respondent No. 6 not having filed any certificate as required under the Rules showing his required experience of practice of 5 years, it was the duty of the selection committee to cancel his candidature. 10. Be that as it may, on consideration of the above facts, we cancel the process of selection only on the ground that the District Superintendent of Police and the District Development Officer did not participate in the process of selection in violation of the resolution of the Government and on their behalf, their subordinate officers participated and gave marks as it appears from the Xerox copy of the mark-sheet. Consequently, in spite of the fact that the appellant figured at No. 2, he cannot get the benefit of selection even if the candidature of the Respondent No. 6 is liable to be cancelled for not filing the certificate showing the requisite qualification of 5 years of practice. 11. We, therefore, find that the learned Single Judge did not take into consideration the above aspects of the matter and consequently, erred in law in dismissing the Special Civil Application filed by the appellant. 12. In the result, the Special Civil Application is allowed. The entire process of selection is set aside including the selection and appointment of the Respondent No. 6. The State of Gujarat is directed to proceed afresh after giving fresh advertisement for filling up the post. 13. The appeal is allowed accordingly. 12. In the result, the Special Civil Application is allowed. The entire process of selection is set aside including the selection and appointment of the Respondent No. 6. The State of Gujarat is directed to proceed afresh after giving fresh advertisement for filling up the post. 13. The appeal is allowed accordingly. In the facts and circumstances, there shall be, however, no order as to costs. 13.1 In view of the above order passed in the main appeal, the connected Civil Application does not survive, and it stands disposed of accordingly.