JUDGMENT A.N. Varma, J. - The petitioners who are Rakshaks in the Railway Protection Force have assailed the validity of an order passed by the Chief Security Officer cancelling a panel prepared for promotion to the posts of Senior Rakshaks. 2. These are the essential facts. The petitioners were, at the relevant time, working as Rakshaks in the Railway Protection Force under the North Eastern Railway Administration. They made applications for promotion to the post of Senior Rakshaks the appointment to which is regulated by the Railway Protection Force Regulations, 1966, Chapter XII dealing with promotions and transfers. Under this Chapter elaborate procedure for selection by promotion to the posts of Senior Rakshaks has been prescribed. It appears there were 16 posts for which recruitment had to be made by promotion from amongst Rakshaks in accordance with the aforesaid regulations. A committee was constituted to draw up a list of Rakshaks after holding the tests and interviews. The Committee consisted of Sri Sher Singh and Sri S.A.S. Husaini, both Assistant Security Officers. They were required to draw up a panel of 16 names, on the basis of the service records of the candidates and thereafter submit the panel of candidates selected for promotion to the Security Officer. In the panel published by the Security Officer on 28-11-1983 the names of the petitioners were also included. 3. It appears that a large number of complaints were made against the manner in which the candidates were selected. The general complaint was that the selections were vitiated by favouritism and nepotism. Service records of the candidates were completely overlooked. Thus candidates whose record of service was positively bad were selected in preference to those having an absolutely clean record of service. 4. The complaints being persistent and general the Chief Security Officer asked the Security Officer to examine these complaints and send his commends. The Security Officer examined these complaints and submitted an elaborate report dated March 1, 1984 in which he pointed out specific instance in which, contrary to the rules prescribed for the selection, marks were not deducted in respect of some of the selected candidates whose integrity and antecedents were doubtful and questionable. Under the rules marks had to be deducted while judging the suitability of candidates on account of such adverse entries. Under the rules marks had to be deducted while judging the suitability of candidates on account of such adverse entries. However, the Selection Committee did not deduct any marks as a consequence of which the names of candidates with questionable integrity and antecedents were included in the selection list. The comments of the Security Officer in his report dated March 1, 1984 were, however, confined only to two individuals, namely, Ali Akber and Daya Ram Maurya, respectively petitioners 5 and 12. This was, however, followed by another report dated March 27, 1984 which indicated that the Selection Committee had not done its job fairly and properly. 5. On the basis of these reports the Chief security Officer passed an order dated March 29, 1984 cancelling the panel prepared by the Selection Committee. Aggrieved by that, petitioner 1 filed a petition before the Director General who dismissed the same holding that the two members of the Selection Committee had given unfair and under served advantage to some at the cost of those who were better entitled. It is against these orders that the petition is directed. 6. Sri B.D. Mandhyan, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the list had been fairly and properly prepared in pursuance of selections validly held and the same has been set aside by the Chief Security Officer wholly arbitrarily. In the alternative it is urged, the petitioners had earned vested right on the basis of selections so held. Such rights could not be taken away on the grounds which have been disclosed by the respondents. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we find no merit in either of these two contentions. We will take up the first contention first. We have already extracted the substance of the first report of the Security Officer dated 1-3-84. The second report dated 27-3-1984 is more revealing and consequently the same is being extracted here in full : "Further to this office letter of even number dated 1-3-84 and your instructions, it is submitted that the service rolls of all the Rks already empanelled and those of Rks Raj Kishore Singh and Jhinak Prasad were checked. It is seen that no mark was deducted for doubtful integrity in all the cases. I checked some more cases who were not selected and found that no mark was deducted for doubtful integrity. It is seen that no mark was deducted for doubtful integrity in all the cases. I checked some more cases who were not selected and found that no mark was deducted for doubtful integrity. The Committee members had committed a general mistake. Two more Rakshaks who have been selected also lose their position in the merit list on account of this. If justice is to be done, the provisional panel dated 28-11-83 should be quashed and the committee should be directed to correct the mistake and submit another proceeding (panel) or the entire proceedings should be quashed and fresh selection may be ordered.". (Emphasis added). 8. It will, therefore, be seen that the selection list under which the petitioners are claiming rights suffered from a serious defect of a general character which had the effect of vitiating the entire selection. It was not disputed that examination of the service records of the candidates was mandatory under the rules. Indeed, specific marks had been allocated for service record of the candidates. The report reveals that service records of the candidates included in the panel had either been not examined or ignored by the Committee at all. In the report dated March 1, 1984 it was found that Ali Akbar and Daya Ram Maurya (respectively, petitioners 5 and 12) had bad record of service. The character roll entry for the year 1981 given to Daya Ram Maurya was 'integrity unwillingly certified'. In his report dated March 27, 1984 the Security Officer pointed out that there were two other Rakshaks in whose cases too the Selection Committee had committed similar mistakes. It is hardly necessary to stress that a careful scrutiny of the antecedents of candidates being considered for selection for so sensitive a post as Senior Rakshaks was important and necessary. In any case, a scrutiny of the service records was mandatory under the rules. However, the report dated 27-3-84 reveals that no marks had been deducted in the case of selected candidates having questionable background and integrity. In our opinion, this was a general mistake which vitiated the entire selections. The Chief Security Officer was hence not unjustified in setting aside the selection list prepared by the Committee. The Director General of the Railway Protection Force has in his order dated 13-7-84 (Annexure 9) observed "I have read the petition of R.K. Sri Anirudh Singh. In our opinion, this was a general mistake which vitiated the entire selections. The Chief Security Officer was hence not unjustified in setting aside the selection list prepared by the Committee. The Director General of the Railway Protection Force has in his order dated 13-7-84 (Annexure 9) observed "I have read the petition of R.K. Sri Anirudh Singh. I have also seen the records connected with the preparation of the panel. The panel was prepared in a manner by the two members of the Board which gave undue and undeserved advantage to some who came on the panel at the cost of others who were better entitled. Evidently such a panel is invalid and has rightly been quashed. I see no reason to interfere with the order of CSO. The petition has no force and is hereby rejected." We entirely agree with these comments. 9. Learned Counsel for the petitioners, however, submitted that the mistakes pointed out in these two reports affected the selection only partially i.e., only in regard to the marks which were allotted under column No. 15 headed 'record of service' for which 15 marks had been allotted and consequently even if there was defect in the allocation of marks under this column, the same could not invalidate the entire selection. 10. We are unable to agree. The failure of the Selection Committee to scrutinise carefully the service records of the candidates and its omission to deduct marks for those having doubtful antecedents vitiated the entire selections. It demonstrated that the selection were not just and fair. Candidates with doubtful integrity scored a march over those having an unblemished record. No trust could hence be reposed in such a selection. It was, therefore, not possible, in our opinion, to separate the remaining part of the selection from that which suffered from the error pointed out in the two reports. 11. Coming to the second submission, in our opinion, it was open to the Chief Security Officer to intervene at the stage at which he did. It is not disputed that the petitioners had not been promoted until the passing of the impugned order dated March 29, 1984 by the Chief Security Officer. It is only if the petitioners had been promoted and joined the posts that possibly the selection list, could not be cancelled at that stage on the ground existing in the present case. It is not disputed that the petitioners had not been promoted until the passing of the impugned order dated March 29, 1984 by the Chief Security Officer. It is only if the petitioners had been promoted and joined the posts that possibly the selection list, could not be cancelled at that stage on the ground existing in the present case. The mere fact that the petitioners' names have been included in the panel would not by itself take away the power of the competent authority to examine the complaints submitted against the manner in which the selections were held. If the selections are found to be vitiated by some defects which are of fundaments character it ought to be open to the competent authorities to review those selections in the absence of any rules to the contrary. In any case, under R. 19.03 of the Rules made for promotion and selection of non-gazetted railway employees the Railway Board has been given express power to entertain representations against a panel and to take appropriate action in respect thereof. 12. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed. The interim orders are vacated.