V. H. BHAIRAVIA, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition is directed against the decision taken by respondent cancelling the Select List of the post of Assistant Sub Inspector (Clerk) in the Central Reserve Police Force Group Centre Gandhinagar prepared in pursuance to the interview held on 9 January 1993 and purposed to give fresh advertisement for the said post and prayed for a writ of mandamuas directing the respondents to implement and operate the said Select List at Annexure B under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. ( 2 ) THE brief facts leading to the present petition as emerges from the record are that the respondent no. 2 inviting applications for the post of Assistant Sub Inspector (Clerk) in the Central Reserve Police Force Group Centre Gandhinagar by issuing public advertisement. The same is appeared in the Employment News dt. 9th-15th January 1993 at Annexure A and accordingly in pursuance to this advertisement the petitioners alongwith others had applied for the post in question. It is submitted that about 1048 applications were received by the respondents against 68 vacancies. However out of 1048 candidates only 4x8 candidates wore found eligible for appearing in physical and pre-medical examination. Out of these 486 candidates only 356 candidates were found eligible for appearing in written examination and all these candidates appeared in the written examination on 22nd January 1993 at Gandhinagar. It is further stated that out of 356 candidates who appeared in the written examination only 236 candidates were declared passed. It is stated that these 236 candidates wore allowed to appear in Typing Test held on 19th January 1993. Out of 236 candidates only X5 candidates declared passed in Typing Test and thereafter these 85 candidates were called for oral interview held on 5th-6th February 1993 and out of these 85 candidates it is stated that only 60 candidates were found eligible for selection and they wore sent for medical fitness on 7th and 8th February 1993 and thus they were finally selected and list of the selected candidates was also prepared accordingly (Annexure B ). This list of selected candidates was including the candidates of following three categories viz. (i) General (ii) Reserved category for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates and (iii) Departmental candidates and Ex-Army candidates. This list of selected candidates was including the candidates of following three categories viz. (i) General (ii) Reserved category for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates and (iii) Departmental candidates and Ex-Army candidates. It is submitted that though the select list was prepared and though the petitioners were entitled to appointment in pursuance to the select list (Annexure B) they were not being appointed on the post in question In the meantime the petitioners came to know about movement of the respondents for inviting applications for the post of Assistant Sub Inspector (Clerk) from departmental candidates of Nagpur to be filled in the vacancies. It is submitted that petitioners reasonably apprehended that respondent no. 1 would cancel the select list already prepared by respondent no. 2 and hence this petition. ( 3 ) IT has been submitted that Miss. V. P. Shah learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners who are duly selected for the post of Assistant Sub Inspector (Clerk) in the Central Reserve Police Force but they are not being appointed by the respondents and therefore the respondents be directed to issue appointment orders in favour of the petitioners by issuing a writ of mandamus. Second contention of Miss. Shah is that the decision of the respondents cancelling the select list is against the principles of natural justice and arbitrary. Learned counsel Miss Shah has relied upon following authorities: (1) AIR 1990 SC 461 (2) AIR 1991 SC 1612 . IT has been further contended by Miss. Shah that as the recruitment for the post advertised was to be made on all India basis and after going through the very tough tests and after finally getting selected for the post the selection of candidates could not be jeopardised or cancelled on flimsy ground of commission or irregularities in conducting whole examination and taking interview because it would cause greater hardships and frustration in the minds of the selected candidates who with the great labour have secured their place in list of selection for employment. She has submitted that out of 1048 applications 488 candidates were found eligible for physically medical lest and that too out of 488 candidates 355 candidates were found eligible for written examination and out of 355 candidates 236 candidates were allowed to appear in Typing Test and out of 236 candidates only 85 candidates were found to have acquired prescribed minimum typing speed and were called for oral interview and out of 85 candidates only 60 candidates were found eligible for selection in final list. It has been submitted that thus after going through the tough selection procedure and scrutiny the petitioners alongwith others have been selected and their names were also enlisted as selected candidates for the post of Assistant Sub Inspector (Clerk ). It is therefore submitted by Miss. Shah the learned counsel for the petitioners that now it is not open for the respondents to cancel the whole select list and to deprive the valuable right of the petitioners of being appointed on the post of Assistant Sub Inspector (Clerk ). ( 4 ) AS against this the counter arguments of Mr. J. D. Ajmera learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents are that the test and interview hold in pursuance to the advertisement found to be in violation of recruitment rules and it is submitted by Mr. Ajmera that commission of these serious irregularities were brought to the notice of the Director General of Central Reserve Police Force respondent no. 1 herein. The respondent no. I pursuance to this made thorough inquiry into the complaint this and on receiving the report it was decided to cancel the said select list. It has been submitted by Mr. Ajmera that the irregularities committed in holding the test the examination were found to be very serious in nature. It has been pointed out in affidavit-in-reply that the irregularities alleged to have been committed in conducting the test and interview they are as under: (A) certain applications which were received beyond the prescribed time limit as mentioned in the advertisement i. e. 12th January 1993 were considered for selection. These application ought not to have been taken into account. It is pertinent to note that as per selection boards proceedings the Selection Board received III applications beyond time However only selected candidates were permitted and allowed. (B) Satya Prakash Asstt. Comdt. These application ought not to have been taken into account. It is pertinent to note that as per selection boards proceedings the Selection Board received III applications beyond time However only selected candidates were permitted and allowed. (B) Satya Prakash Asstt. Comdt. and Shri S. R. Mayal Inspector (M) who were co-opted member of the Board participated in the selection process even though their relatives/children were candidates for consideration by Board. This is contrary to the instructions issued by the Director. I say that on the basis of principle of equity and fairness and to ensure elimination of every bias the members of the selection committee whose relatives are being considered for selection should not take part in the selection process. (C) There were complaints that those candidates who wore declared failed in the typing lest were given second opportunity. (D) The signature of the candidates had not been obtained at bottom of the typing papers which has given scope for subsequent manipulation. The examiner who has collected and obtained the typing papers has not signed the same. (E) The Chairman of the selection board was required to put his initial on all answer sheets whereas in the present case he however allowed the different members of the Board to put their initials in the answer sheets. The same is contrary to the instructions issued by the Director General C. R. P F. New Delhi. (F) The test was conducted in absence of the Chairman of the Selection Board who was out of station on tour/leave This is not in accorance with the instructions issued by the Directorate (G) Certain candidates who were not possessing required physical standards as mentioned0 in the advertisement and who were medically unfit were allowed to appear in the test. ( 5 ) IT has been submitted that considering over all facts and circumstances of the case the record of whole examination the competent authority did not approve proposed select list as the recruitment test was conducted in gross negligent by over-looking instructions/orders issued in this regard and further found that serious procedural irregularities created doubt about fair conduct of recruitment test Mr. Ajmera the learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that the select list in question was not the final list as it was not approved by the competent authority i e. respondent no. 1. Ajmera the learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that the select list in question was not the final list as it was not approved by the competent authority i e. respondent no. 1. Therefore it could not be said that it is a final select list and the petitioners acquired voted right for appointment. Mr. Ajmera contended that the respondent no I is competent even to cancel the select list if he is satisfied that the procedure laid down under the instructions and the orders have been flouted while conducting the examination and the test as stated above and therefore the petitioners have no right to challenge the same under Article 226 of the Constitution of India In support of his arguments Mr. Ajmera learned counsel relied upon the following authorities: (1) 1993 (1) SLR 415 = AIR 1993 SC 451 (2) AIR 1970 SC 150 . (3) AIR 1970 SC 1269 ( 6 ) HAVING considered the rival contentions of parties the question whether the selected petitioners have any right to challenge the powers exercised by the respondent no I cancelling the final result of the candidates and to entitle right of certiorari or mandamus under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. The first contention of Miss. Shah regarding issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to give appointment to the selected candidates as per select list is sustainable for the simple reason that selected candidates have no vested right of appointment on the post in pursuance to the select list. The Supreme Court in the ease of Indian Territory of Chandigarh vs. Dilbagh Singh and others 1993 (1) SLR page 451 has hold as under:affording of an opportunity of hearing by an opportunity hearing by an Administration to the members of a Selection Board constituted by it before cancelling a dubious select list of candidates for appointment to civil post prepared by such Selection Board is not and cannot be a requirement of either law or any principle of natural justice. It is so for the reason that no member of a Selection Board acquired any vested right or interest in sustaining a select list prepared by the Selection Board. It is so for the reason that no member of a Selection Board acquired any vested right or interest in sustaining a select list prepared by the Selection Board. Besides there is no personal right or interest of any member of a Selection Board which could be adversely effected by the Administration cancelling a select list of candidates prepared by Selection Board when it is found to have been prepared by the Selection Board in unfair and unjudicious manner. Therefore there can arise no need to any Administration to afford an opportunity of hearing to the members of the Selection Board before cancelling a dubious select list of candidates for appointment of civil posts prepared by the Hence we must hold that the CAT was wholly wrong in setting aside the Chandigarh Administrations order by which the dubious select list of candidates for appointment as conductors in CTU PREPARED BY Selection Board constituted by it had been cancelled on its erroneous view that non-affording of an opportunity of hearing to the members of the Selection Board before cancelling its select list had vitiated that Order. This would be our answer to the question adverted to at the outset ( 7 ) SECOND contention of Miss. Shah that number of vacancies are to be notified in by giving appointment and some candidates are found fit the successful candidate have acquired right to get appointment is unsustainable in view of further observation by the Supreme Court in the above Indian Territory of Chandigarhs case (Supra) on Page 457 wherein it has been held as under:it is not correct to say that if a number of vacancies are notified for appointment an adequate number of candidates are found fit the successful candidate acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed which cannot be legilimately denied. Ordinarily the notification merely amount to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and on their selection they do not acquire any right to the post. Unless the relevant Recruitment Rules so indicate the State is under no legal duly to fill up all or any other vacancies. However it does not mean that the State has the license of acting in an arbitrary manner. Unless the relevant Recruitment Rules so indicate the State is under no legal duly to fill up all or any other vacancies. However it does not mean that the State has the license of acting in an arbitrary manner. The decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons and if the vacancies or any of them are filled up the State is bound to respect the comparative merit of the candidates as reflected at the recruitment test and no discrimination can be permitted. ( 8 ) IN the instant case final mark-sheet of successful candidates for the post of Assistant Sub Inspector (Clerk) in S. R. P. F. was submitted to the respondent no. 1 who is an appointing authority by the Selection Committee but he did not approve the same and ordered to make inquiry into the complaints regarding said irregularities committed in conducting test by the Selection Committee. Whether the respondent no. 1 is competent to cancel the said select list ? My answer to the above question is in the affirmative in view of the observation made by Supreme Court in the case of the the Bihar School Examination Board vs. Subhas Chandra Sinha and others AIR 1970 SUPREME COURT 1269 wherein it has been held as under:where the Bihar School Examination Board on being satisfied that a vast majority of the examinees at a particular centre have adopted unfair means it is not necessary for the Board before cancelling the examination as whole at that centre to give an opportunity to all the candidates to represent their cases. The Board had not charged any one with unfair means of that he could claim to defend himself. The examination was vitiated by adoption of unfair means on a mass scale. In thses cirumstances it would be wrong to insist that the Board must hold a detailed inquiry into the matter and examine each individual case to satisfy itself which of the candidates had not adopted unfair means. The examination as a whole had to go. ( 9 ) TO make such decisions depend upon a fullfledged judicial inquiry would hold up the functioning of such autonomous bodies as Universities and School Boards. The examination as a whole had to go. ( 9 ) TO make such decisions depend upon a fullfledged judicial inquiry would hold up the functioning of such autonomous bodies as Universities and School Boards. The Universities and the School Boards are responsible for their standards and the conduct of examinations The essence of the examinations is that the worth of every person is appraised without any assistance and manage to secure success in the neigourhood of 100% when others at other centres are successful only at an average of 50 it is obvious that the University or the Board must do something in the matter. It cannot hold a detailed quasi-judicial inquiry with a right to its alumni to plead and lead evidence etc. Before the results are withheld or the examinations cancelled. If there is sufficient material on which it can be demonstrated that the university was right in it conclusion that the examinations ought to be cancelled then academic standards require that the universitys appreciation of the problem must be respected. It would not do for the Court to say that you should not do for the Court to say that you should have examined all the candidates or even their representatives with a view to ascertaining whether they had received assistance or not. To do this would encourage indiscipline if not also perjury. ( 10 ) IN the affidavit-in-reply it has been categorically explained in para 4 (1) under what circumstances respondent no. 1 ordered to make inquiry. Para 4. 1 of the affidavit-in-reply reads as under:para 4. 1:- the proposed select list was prepared for 60 post of Assistant Sub-Inspector (Clerk) by D. I. G. C. R. P. F. Group Centre Gandhinagar. The said select list was prepared after inviting applications vide an advertisement dated 15th January 1993 published in weekly Employment News. However it is not correct to say that the aforesaid select list was a final list. The final select list is required to be prepared by the Directorate of C R P F. (Ministry of Home Affairs) and the selected candidates are required to be allotted respective Zone or Sector as per vacancy position. In the personal case the proposed select list which was prepared by D. I. G. CRPF Gandhinagar was sent to the Directorate for it finalisation. In the personal case the proposed select list which was prepared by D. I. G. CRPF Gandhinagar was sent to the Directorate for it finalisation. Meanwhile certain complaint were received from the public pointing out serious irregularities and unfair practice adopted during the selection process. After necessary enquiry the Inspector General of Police Western Sector C. R. P. F. Bombay prepared his report and same was submitted to the Directorate for necessary action. The competent authority after perusing the proceedings of the Selection Board and other relevant record and considering the report submitted by I. G. P. Western Sector C. R. P. F. Bombay came to the conclusion that the proposed select list was vitiated on account of gross violation of certain instructions orders having a bearing on the process of selection. It was further found that serious procedural irregularities wore committed. Situation raised serious doubt about fair conduct of the recruitment test In view of the above the Director General has decided to quash the entire selection process. ( 11 ) CONSIDERING the affidavit-in-reply it could not be said that respondent no 1 has acted arbitrarily or without jurisdiction in cancelling the select list in question. It is very unhappy affairs. It should be observed here that it would not be open for the Competent Authority to cancel the merit list of the selected candidates prepared by the Selection Committee arbitrarily or according to the whims otherwise there will be no guarantee of employment howsoever many meritorious candidates might be Simultaneously this court cannot be a party to the unfair means or mal-practice in holding the examination ( 12 ) IN the instant case there is valid and just reason for cancelling the select list in question Undoubtedly the candidates appeared in the test who were fortunate enough to gel the place in the select list got set-back by cancellation of the result ( 13 ) MISS. Shah learned advocate for the petitioners is right in her submission that they will be frustrated and disappointed in the begining of their career. However this is very hard fate which could not be repaired under judicial review of the court at the cost of fairness and impartiality in conducting the examination and left or the candidates. Shah learned advocate for the petitioners is right in her submission that they will be frustrated and disappointed in the begining of their career. However this is very hard fate which could not be repaired under judicial review of the court at the cost of fairness and impartiality in conducting the examination and left or the candidates. ( 14 ) AS regards nature of irregularities alleged to have been committed as stated above was regarding late applications received beyond time limit prescribed in advertisement i e. 12th January 1993 and were considered for selection. She has contended that no particulars regarding such applications have been stated in affidavit-in-reply Likewise as regards co-opted members viz. Satya Prakash Assistant Commandant and Shri S. R. Mayal Inspector (M) co-opted members have participated in the selection process eventhough their relatives and children were the candidates for consideration by the Board. This is contrary to the instruction issued by the Directorate General of Police and the said instructions appended at A-1 Miss Shah has submitted that this has not vitiated the test because out of throe relatives from these members two were the sons and daughter and they have been declared FAILED in the test and only one is declared PASSED. Thus it shows impartiality of the Selection Committee despite participation of some co-opted members. She has also submitted that as regards not signing typing paper by the candidates and not obtaining signatures of the candidates on typing papers and as regards absence of Chairman of the Selection Board and not putting his initial on the answer book supplied to the candidates and the candidates who were not found medically fit wore allowed to appear in the acts. According to her the above alleged irregularities do not vitiate entire test and all these allegations are vague Miss. Shah is right in her submission regarding vagueness of charges and irregularities on the face of it enumerated in affidavit-in-reply vide (a) to (g) but the position made it very clear by filing further affidavit-in-sur-rejoinder by the respondent no. According to her the above alleged irregularities do not vitiate entire test and all these allegations are vague Miss. Shah is right in her submission regarding vagueness of charges and irregularities on the face of it enumerated in affidavit-in-reply vide (a) to (g) but the position made it very clear by filing further affidavit-in-sur-rejoinder by the respondent no. 1 by giving details regarding how many applications received and how many candidates allowed to appear and enlisted in and got place of selection in the final result has been pointed out in the affidavit regarding candidates who were allowed to give typing test for second time and there are names of relatives of said three co- opted members of the Board As regards absence of Chairman of the Selection Board at the examination centre is an established position. Presece of Chairman as per instructions carried is a must at the Examination Centre. These all acts have been given by the respondent in the subsequent affidavit Having regard to the factual aspect of the matter undoubtedly test in question was conducted in violation of the instructions issued. In other words it can be said that it was not conducted fairly. ( 15 ) IN the opinion of the court principle of nature justice fairness and to ensure elements of every bias is found in this case. In view of the Supreme Court judgment rendered in the case of A. K. Kraipak and others vs. Union of India and others AIR 1970 SC 150 (Supra) this court has no other alternative but to hold that the decision of the respondent no. 1 cancelling the final result of the candidates for the post of Assistant Sub Inspector (Clerk) is just and proper and it is not open for the candidates to challenge the same under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. However it is to be observed here that the lest in question was hold after duly advertised inviting applications from the eligible candidates from all over India and it is a competitive examination. The candidates have to undergo tough test from physical fitness to oral interview and the candidates have come for interview test have wasted four days at Gandhinagar continuously they have undergone expenses. The candidates have to undergo tough test from physical fitness to oral interview and the candidates have come for interview test have wasted four days at Gandhinagar continuously they have undergone expenses. The unemployed educated candidates who had come in the hope of getting job from all over India and those who were fortunate enough to get selection were placed in final list and those who were unfortunate have lost their hope of getting appointment and that hope has been destroyed by mismanagement of the respondent and frustrated in their young age. Now the respondents proposed to hold fresh lest and interview by giving fresh advertisement and they also proposed to hold test at different places. ( 16 ) CONSIDERING the facts and circumstances of the case this petition is dismissed. However in view of the facts stated above this court feels that it will be in the fairness of things that the candidates including the petitioners who wore placed in the final examination result must be awarded cost for which they have spent for appearing in the examination. Therefore the respondent no. 1 is directed to pay Rs. 200/- (Rs. two hundred only) towards cost to each candidates who are placed in the final result. The respondent no. 1 is also directed to deposit whole amount in this court within forth-night. Learned advocate for the petitioner is allowed to withdraw the said amount on depositing the same in the court and she is directed to pay to each candidates at the rate of Rs. 200/- as aforesaid. ( 17 ) MR. Ajmera learned counsel for the respondents in fairness submitted that if the court feels that proposed fresh test is to be taken at Gandhinagar there would not be difficulty in holding test at Gandhinagar. It is therefore hoped that test shall be held at Gandhinagar so that the candidates may not have to undergo more hardships. ( 18 ) MR. Ajmera learned counsel for the respondents in fairness submitted that if the court fells that proposed fresh test is to be taken at Gandhinagar there would not be difficulty in holding test at Gandhinagar. It is therefore hoped that test shall be hold at Gandhinagar so that the candidates may not have to undergo more hardships. ( 18 ) MR. Ajmera learned counsel for the respondents in fairness submitted that if the court fells that proposed fresh test is to be taken at Gandhinagar there would not be difficulty in holding test at Gandhinagar. It is therefore hoped that test shall be hold at Gandhinagar so that the candidates may not have to undergo more hardships. ( 19 ) AT this stage Miss Shah orally requested for stay of the operation of the order of this court for two weeks and till then interim relief be continued. Mr. Ajmera has taken serious objection to the above request of Miss. Shah as the recruitment of S. R. P. F. is hold up because of interim relief granted by this court and therefore he request that no further stay be granted. ( 20 ) HAVING regard to the fact and circumstance of the case and in fairness the order of his court will come into operation after two weeks from today till then interim relief shall be continued. Rule discharged. Rule Discharged. .