JUDGMENT S.N. Jha, J. These five writ petitions challenging the validity of the appointment of Sub-Inspectors of Police/Reserve Sub-Inspectors in the Bihar Police Service have been heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment. C.W.J.C. Nos. 7189, 7510 and 7607 of 1994 have been filed by unsuccessful candidates, C.W.J.C. No. 7706 of 1994 has been filed by an association, called Daroga Pariksharthi Sangh, 1993-94, and its Secretary, purporting to represent the interest of the examinees. C.W.J.C. No. 5447 of 1994 has been filed as a public interest litigation. 2. The appointment of Sub-Inspectors of Police in the State of Bihar is governed by the Bihar Police Manual. The relevant provisions are contained in Chapter 20 of Volume I of the Manual. As per the Scheme originally envisaged, appointment was to be made by the Deputy Inspector-General (Administration) on the basis of the selection made by the Bihar Public Service Commission. The Commission was required to hold the physical tests, the written test and the interview of the eligible candidates on receipt of the requisition in respect of the 50 percent vacancies on the post (rest to be filled up by promotion from amongst the Assistant Sub-Inspectors). Some of the provisions, to be precise, Rule 653 (a), Rule 654 (a), (b) & (e). Rule 655, Rule 656 (a) and Rule 658, were amended on July 13, 1993. By reason of the said amendments, inter alia, the selection is now to be made by a Committee headed by the Director General and Inspector General of Police (DGP, in short). I shall refer to the relevant provisions, as amended, at the appropriate place in the judgment. 3. On July 18, 1993 an advertisement was published by the Member-Secretary of the Selection Committee, bearing Advertisement No. 002/93, inviting applications for appointment of 1625 Sub-Inspectors of Police and 15 Reserve Sub-Inspectors laying down, inter alia, the eligibility regarding age, height & chest measurement and weight (in the case of female candidates). It is said that pursuant to the said advertisement as many as 1,80,000 applications were received. The physical tests as prescribed in Appendix 38 of the Police Manual (Volume III) were held at different places. After the said tests, about 32,000 candidates qualified for the written test. It is said that pursuant to the said advertisement as many as 1,80,000 applications were received. The physical tests as prescribed in Appendix 38 of the Police Manual (Volume III) were held at different places. After the said tests, about 32,000 candidates qualified for the written test. It may be mentioned here that in terms of the provisions as contained in Clause (c) of Rule 654 as well as para 8 of Appendix 38, only those candidates who pass the physical tests are allowed to appear at the written test. The written test was held in January 1994. As per the result of the written test, published on June 2, 1994, 5,143 candidates were called for interview. The final result in respect of the 1640 successful candidates was published on August 15, 1994. Appointment letters were issued to the successful candidates and they were sent to the Police Training College, Hazaribagh for training. The Principal of the Training College initially expressed reservation about availability of accommodation and training facilities to such a large number of trainees at one time. He also appears to have had reservation as to the physical and medical fitness of some of the candidates. He, accordingly, got the trainees measured and weighed (in the case of female trainees). After scrutiny which he appears to have made with the help of the police doctor posted at the Training College, he came to the conclusion that as many as 338 candidates were 'unfit'. Their joining was nevertheless accepted provisionally. An order, described as Training Range Order No. 2511/94, to that effect was issued on September 9, 1994. On representation of the concerned trainees who had been found to be 'unfit', on the direction of the Chief Minister, the Inspector General of Police (Training) scrutinised the disputed cases on September 11 and 12, 1994. He too found some of the candidates to be precise 24 as against 338 found by the Principal of the College, to be unfit. The report to the above effect was submitted on September 13, 1994. Some of these writ petitions had already been filed by then. 4. The respondents have filed counter affidavits and supplementary counter affidavits. According to them, the selection of the candidates does not suffer from any infirmity. They have also denied that any unfit and ineligible candidate was selected. The report to the above effect was submitted on September 13, 1994. Some of these writ petitions had already been filed by then. 4. The respondents have filed counter affidavits and supplementary counter affidavits. According to them, the selection of the candidates does not suffer from any infirmity. They have also denied that any unfit and ineligible candidate was selected. The authority of the Principal of the Training College to challenge the fitness of the successful candidates and to refuse to accept their joining has been questioned. In the last supplementary counter affidavit filed during course of hearing, however, it has been stated that a decision has been taken to get the fitness of the candidates examined by High Power Medical Board. A request to this effect has already been made to the Secretary, Department of Health-cum-Director-in-Chief, Health Services on October 28, 1994. During course of arguments Mr. P.P. Rao, learned counsel for the State very fairly, if I may say so, offered to get the fitness of the candidates verified by any independent agency, should the court be of that opinion, to instil and inspire people's faith in the recruitment process. According to the counsel for the petitioners, on the other hand, having regard to the large-scale irregularities committed in the selection of unfit candidates and non-compliance of the provisions in regard to the character verification and medical examination of the candidates as also the haste with which the entire process was completed, the whole selection process must be deemed to have been vitiated and, therefore, nothing short of de novo selection would serve the ends of justice. 5. The appointments have been challenged on two grounds; (a) selection of candidates who do not possess the necessary physical fitness such as the prescribed height and chest or weight (in the case of female candidates) or suffer from some physical disability and (b) non-compliance of provisions of Rule 656 (b) of the Police Manual Vol. I. As indicated above, the joining of 338 candidates has been accepted temporarily on provisional basis. Further, a decision has already been taken to get the 'fitness' verified by High Power Medical Board. I. As indicated above, the joining of 338 candidates has been accepted temporarily on provisional basis. Further, a decision has already been taken to get the 'fitness' verified by High Power Medical Board. Without going into the question, at this stage, as to whether the verification by the Medical Board would be sufficient, the main question which arises for consideration, in my opinion, is whether selection of 'unfit' candidates, assuming them to be so, vitiates the whole selection process rendering it illegal and without jurisdiction. 6. Nobody can deny that an ineligible candidate cannot be selected for any appointment. That may, no doubt, impinge upon the selection process but only so as to invalidate individual cases and not the selection as a whole. The term 'recruitment' is a compendious expression. Beginning with the issue of advertisement it continues upto the stage of actual appointment. In that sense, the term cannot be understood as co-terminus with 'selection', as suggested by Mr. Tara Kant Jha, learned counsel for some of the petitioners. In the context of the Bihar Police Manual, the selection of the candidates is made at three stages. First, there are physical tests, then the written test followed by interview. Those who qualify in the physical tests alone are eligible to appear at the written test. Those declared successful in the written test alone are called for interview. All this was required to be done earlier by the Bihar Public Service Commission as indicated at the outset, and now is to be done after amendment of the Rules by the Selection Committee headed by the DGP. Then comes the stage of the issue of appointment letters. That stage is contemplated by clause (b) of Rule 656. The said provision may be quoted in extenso at this very stage as hereunder: "The Deputy Inspector-General (Administration) will ensure that Verification Rolls in P.M. Form no. 101 are issued in respect of those for whom appointment letters are going to be issued. For this purpose, Superintendents may be directed to get in touch with the authorities concerned for getting it expedited. Thereafter, the candidates shall be referred for medical test before the Civil Surgeon or Deputy Superintendent of Sadar Sub-divisional Hospital of the place where the candidate resides. On being declared fit in P.M. Form no. For this purpose, Superintendents may be directed to get in touch with the authorities concerned for getting it expedited. Thereafter, the candidates shall be referred for medical test before the Civil Surgeon or Deputy Superintendent of Sadar Sub-divisional Hospital of the place where the candidate resides. On being declared fit in P.M. Form no. 103 the Deputy Inspector General will issue appointment letters to the selected candidates on advice of the Commission and will direct them to report to the Principal, Police Training College, on the date fixed generally in January. A detailed list of the candidates appointed will at the same time be sent to the Principal, Police Training College, together with their application forms, verification rolls, medical and other certificates. These papers will form a part of the candidates' appointment papers and will be sent to the Superintendents of the districts to which they are subsequently posted (for period of probation)." It will appear from bare perusal of the above provision that the clause provides for preparation of the character verification rolls in Form No. 101 and grant of medical fitness certificate in Form No. 103 and then issue of appointment letters together with the communication of the detailed list of candidates with the necessary particulars such as the application of the concerned candidates, to the Principal, Training College where they have to report for the purpose of training Character verification and medical fitness of the candidates are no doubt essential part of the recruitment process. Any candidate, irrespective of the merit may not be appointed to the post if the character verification and/ or the report of the medical examination are adverse. But it cannot be said that the character verification and/or medical examination involves any element of selection. When we talk of selection we mean selection of the person on the basis of his inter se merit. Merit is not to be determined at the stage of character verification or medical examination. That may disqualify the person from appointment but that has nothing to do with his inter se merit. Even a topper of competitive examination may be physically unfit or may have an adverse character antecedent and may not therefore be appointed. 7. As indicated above, the job of making selection originally was assigned to the Bihar Public Service Commission which now by reason of the amendment is to be done by a Selection Committee. Even a topper of competitive examination may be physically unfit or may have an adverse character antecedent and may not therefore be appointed. 7. As indicated above, the job of making selection originally was assigned to the Bihar Public Service Commission which now by reason of the amendment is to be done by a Selection Committee. As is well known, like any other appointment, the role of the Commission or any Selection body comes to an end with the making of recommendation after conclusion of the selection process. The selection body is in no way associated with actual appointment which power vests in the Competent Authority, the State Government or any other authority empowered under the Rules. In the case of Sub-Inspector of Police this power of appointment vests in the Deputy Inspector-General (Administration). It is common ground that the powers and function assigned to the DIG (Administration) are at present performed by the IG (Administration). There is nothing in Rule 656 (b) to suggest that after the verification rolls in Form No. 101 and the medical fitness reports in Form No. 103 are received, the matter is to be referred back to the Selection Committee. In fairness to Dr. Sadanand Jha, learned counsel for some of the petitioners, it may be mentioned that in support of his contention that Rule 656 (b) also involves some element of selection, reliance was placed on the words "the Deputy Inspector General will issue appointment letters to the selected candidates on the advice of the Commission" occurring in the said rule. The expression "on the advice of the Commission", in my opinion, refers to the previous stage, namely the stage at which the selection comprising of physical tests, written test and/or interview culminating in the final selection list, is made. It may be pointed out that Rule 656 (a), as amended, provides that the Selection Committee headed by the DGP shall select the best men for appointment depending on number of vacancies available. It does not mention about sending of the selection list or the recommendation to the appointing authority. Perhaps, if I may say so, it would have been more appropriate if that provision had been specifically incorporated in Rule 656 (a) itself. It does not mention about sending of the selection list or the recommendation to the appointing authority. Perhaps, if I may say so, it would have been more appropriate if that provision had been specifically incorporated in Rule 656 (a) itself. But as appointments cannot be made without recommendation of the Commission (Now Committee), provision has been made in Rule 656 (b) to the effect that the DIG will issue appointment letters to the selected candidates on the advice of the Commission. That only highlights the fact that no appointment can be made without the advice or the recommendation of the Commission (now Committee). Having regard to the language of sub-rule as a whole there cannot be any doubt that the sub-rule contemplates the stage of actual appointment which, although, a part of the recruitment process cannot be termed as part of the selection process as well. The inevitable and logical consequence is that any non-compliance thereof i.e. Rule 656 (b), by itself does not nullify the selection process. That may at the most invalidate individual appointment(s) but not the selection process as a whole. 8. Rule 656 (b) was also relied upon in support of the contention that preparation of the verification rolls in Form No. 101 and medical fitness report in Form No. 103 are pre-requisite conditions of the appointment. Our attention was drawn to the stand of the respondents in paragraph 10 of the supplementary counter affidavit in C.W.J.C. No. 7189 of 1994 that "police verification is not a pre-requisite for the issue of appointment letters". Mr. P.P. Rao, learned counsel for the State in this connection pointed out that as per the condition mentioned in the appointment letters, model copy whereof has been marked as Annexure-I to the counter affidavit, the appointment as "subject to the satisfactory character verification and medical examination. In case unsatisfactory verification or medical report, services are liable to the terminated." Counsel contended that the impugned appointments as per the appointment letters themselves being subject to the satisfactory verification and medical examination, cannot be said to be final and, therefore, merely on the grounds of absence of the verification rolls or medical fitness report in Form Nos. 101 and 103 at the time of issue of appointment letter, the appointments cannot be said to be bad. 101 and 103 at the time of issue of appointment letter, the appointments cannot be said to be bad. Counsel in this connection also submitted that in the State of Bihar no appointment on the post of Sub-Inspectors of Police had been made for a long time resulting in accumulation of large number of vacancies. Therefore, in order to meet the exigencies of situation it was considered appropriate to issue appointment letters pending character and medical verification which could be completed during course of training. It was also pointed out that since the joining of the successful candidates on September 9, 1994 the verification rolls in most of the cases have been received and in the rest the same is in process. 9. The language of Rule 656 (b) requiring (i) preparation of the verification rolls in Form No. 101 in respect of the persons to whom "appointment letters are going to be issued", (ii) issue of medical fitness certificate in Form No. 103 and (iii) sending detailed list of candidates appointed together with their application forms, verification rolls, medical and others certificates forming "part of the candidates' appointment papers" clearly suggest that at that very stage or prior to issue of appointment letters the process of character verification and medical examination should be completed. To this extent the stand of the State that such verification is not prerequisite of appointment cannot be said to be correct. The question, however, is whether non-compliance of the requirement prior to or at the stage of issue of appointment letters will vitiate the very appointment. Although Rule 656 (b), in terms, suggests the stage when character verification and medical examination are to be done, what is of substance is not the stage but the fact that the person concerned has no adverse antecedent and does not suffer from any disability so as to disqualify him from appointment. Even in cases where person has already been appointed after character verification and examination, the appointment can be cancelled if later it is found that the person had adverse antecedents or suffers from any physical disability rendering him unsuitable or unfit for such appointment, after giving opportunity of hearing. A clean character and physical fitness are sine qua non of all appointments in public services. In that sense they are certainly pre-requisites of appointment. A clean character and physical fitness are sine qua non of all appointments in public services. In that sense they are certainly pre-requisites of appointment. However, if even after character verification and medical examination, the appointment can later be cancelled it would be difficult to hold that merely because the process was not completed the appointments are illegal. In my opinion, that may at best render the appointment premature but certainly not illegal and without jurisdiction. So far as the stage of issue of the verification rolls in Form No. 101 and medical fitness reports in Form No. 103 are concerned, the provisions of Rule 656 (b) appear to be directory and not mandatory in nature. Whether the appointment of a particular person can be said to be null and void if later, during the pendency of this case or even afterwards, the character verification report and medical fitness reports in the prescribed forms are received and nothing adverse is found against him? The answer, in my opinion has to be given in the negative. Non-compliance of the provisions, so far as the stage is concerned does not go to the root of the matter. It merely results in irregularity which can be cured. 10. The petitioners have not specifically prayed for quashing the appointments by issuing writ in the nature of quo warranto. In the absence of the appointees (only some of them have been added as party respondents, purportedly, in representative capacity), perhaps, it is not possible to consider the question as to whether they, meaning thereby particular individual appointees, suffer from any defect in their appointment on the gound of non-compliance of Rule 656 (b). Even if we were to apply the principle governing issue of writ in the nature of quo-warranto, it is obvious that such a writ can be issued only when the person concerned is found to be suffering from a defect which cannot be cured. I do not see how mere non-issue of reports in Form Nos. 101 and 103 prior to or at the stage of issue of appointment letters will vitiate or nullify either the individual appointments or the selection process as a whole. 11. Whether non-compliance of Rule 656(b) vitiates the whole selection process? I have already held above that the process of selection comes to an end at the stage of Rule 656 (a). 11. Whether non-compliance of Rule 656(b) vitiates the whole selection process? I have already held above that the process of selection comes to an end at the stage of Rule 656 (a). Rule 656(b), no doubt, envisages a very important stage of recruitment. Even the best of the successful candidates per se is not entitled to appointment unless he possesses good moral character and is free from disease, constitutional affliction or bodily infirmity rendering him unfit or likely to render him unfit for police duties. These are the necessary qualifications for appointment vide clause (i) and clause (iv) of Rule 658. That only, however, means that a particular person or persons are disqualified from appointment. In the instant case, no doubt, the number of the doubtful cases - whether on the ground of the candidates being short in height or chest or weight or on the ground of physical infirmity - is very high - 338 out of 1640. A doubt, therefore, does arise in one's mind as to whether the selection was made in a proper manner. Rule 656(a) provides that the Public Service Commission (now the Committee) shall select 'the best men' for appointment. I have given my anxious consideration to the said question. I have already indicated above that the selection of candidates for appointment of sub-Inspectors of police or Reserve Sub-Inspector, like any other appointment, is one of the stages of recruitment process. The selection of Sub-Inspectors of Police is made at three stages-physical tests, written test and interview. The character of the person, his educational attainments and physical fitness are the basic qualifications as provided in Rule 658 of the Police Manual. They are in the nature of eligibility. Physical test held under Clause (c) of Rule 654, on the other hand, is a part of selection process. The said clause reads as hereunder : "All candidates who are prima facie eligible for appointment shall be required to appear for measurements and physical tests given in Appendix 38 at district/Range Headquarters before Superintendent/Range Deputy Inspector-General or before any Special Committee specially set up for this purpose. The said clause reads as hereunder : "All candidates who are prima facie eligible for appointment shall be required to appear for measurements and physical tests given in Appendix 38 at district/Range Headquarters before Superintendent/Range Deputy Inspector-General or before any Special Committee specially set up for this purpose. The list of candidates who satisfy these tests shall be furnished to the Public Service Commission who shall then arrange to hold a written competitive examination as in sub-rule (e)." (emphasis added) Paragraph 8 of Appendix 38 laying down standard of physical tests may also be quoted as follows : "Only those male candidates who pass the physical tests given below shall be allowed to appear at the written examination : Test Sub-Inspector Reserve Sub-Inspector Mile Run within 6 minutes within 6 minutes High Jump 4 ft. 4 ft. 6 inches Long Jumps 12 ft. 15 ft. Putting the shot (16 Ibs.) 15 ft. 20 ft. It would appear from the above two provisions that (i) only those candidates who are prima facie eligible for appointment (within the meaning of Rule 658) can appear for measurements and physical test and (ii) the physical tests within the meaning of Rule 654 (c) are confined to only four items, namely, the mile run, high jump, long jump and shot put. The physical tests are different from the physical 'measurment' and 'fitness'. To illustrate the point, a candidate who otherwise possesses the eligibility regarding height, chest etc. and does not suffer from any physical infirmity may not be able to run a mile within six minutes or take high jump of four ft. and so on. Likewise, a person who is able to run the said distance within the stipulated time and is also able to take jumps and put the shot, as per the prescribed requirements, may be short in height or chest and so on. In the first category of cases the person is eligible but fails to pass the physical tests. In the second category he passes the tests but is not eligible. In either case he cannot be appointed. If bung-lings are committed on large scale in holding the physical tests, that may certainly impinge on the selection process. But the selection of ineligible candidates may not vitiate the selection process as whole. It may merely make individual appointments illegal. 12. In either case he cannot be appointed. If bung-lings are committed on large scale in holding the physical tests, that may certainly impinge on the selection process. But the selection of ineligible candidates may not vitiate the selection process as whole. It may merely make individual appointments illegal. 12. I should not be understood to suggest that appointment of ineligible person will give no discredit to the selection process. That will certainly tell upon the authority making the selection. My only endeavour is to point out the effect of invalidity and the distinction in the two kinds of cases. This is important, in my view, as according to the petitioners, the selection of ineligible and unsuitable candidates within the meaning of Rule 558 demands de novo selection as whole. 13. It should be kept in mind that no allegation whatsoever has been made with regard to the mode or manner in which the physical or the written tests have been held or the interview conducted. There is no allegation of any bungling committed at those stages. No allegation has specifically been made against a particular officer associated with these tests. If tests have been held without any blemish, how can the whole selection process be set aside? Why should the rest of the selected candidates, except 338, as found by Shri D.N. Gautam, Principle of the Police Training College or 24 as found by Shri Maiku Ram, IG (Training), be compelled to undergo the process of selection de novo? There is nothing on the record to suggest any illegality, invalidity or irregularity in their (the rest of them) appointment. Should the Court fiddle with their appointment merely because some of the selected candidates allegedly do not possess the necessary eligibility? These are some of the question which cannot be ignored while considering the matter. 14. It should also be kept in mind that except 27 successful candidates who have been added as respondent nos. 3 to 13 in C.W.J.C. No. 7189 of 1994 and respondent nos. 5 to 20 in C.W.J.C. No. 7706 of 1994, purportedly in representative capacity, no other successful candidate has been made party in the present proceedings. The question of non -joinder of the all the successful candidates was gone into at length by Mr. P.P. Rao, learned counsel for the State. 5 to 20 in C.W.J.C. No. 7706 of 1994, purportedly in representative capacity, no other successful candidate has been made party in the present proceedings. The question of non -joinder of the all the successful candidates was gone into at length by Mr. P.P. Rao, learned counsel for the State. Placing reliance on B. Gopalaiah v. Government of Andhra Pradesh (AIR 1969 Andhra Pradesh 204), The General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad v. A.V.R. Siddhanti (AIR 1974 Supreme Court 1755) and A. Janardhana v. Union of India (AIR 1983 Supreme Court 769), counsel submitted that in absence of any challenge to the norm of selection, scheme or policy or the validity of the rule in which cases it may be permissible to the petitioners and to the writ court to nullify the impugned action even in absence of the ultimate beneficiaries of the State action, the selected candidates must be held to be necessary party and it would not be proper to interfere with the entire selection process and thereby nullify the appointment of all the selected candidates in their absence. I find sufficient force in the contention of the learned counsel. 15. In B. Gopalaiah (supra) the plea of non-joinder was repelled by Andhra Pradesh High Court in these words (Page 205 of the Report) : "This is not a case of discrimination of individual against individual. This is a case where a whole class of citizens have been discriminated against and the court cannot refuse to give relief to them on the ground that the class of persons who will be benefited as a result of the discrimination are not before the Court. The person who complains of discrimination cannot be expected to search the country for all persons who are likely to be benefited by its discriminatory policy. Of course, if the discrimination is in favour of an individual against an individual different considerations might arise. But this is not such a case. The person who complains of discrimination cannot be expected to search the country for all persons who are likely to be benefited by its discriminatory policy. Of course, if the discrimination is in favour of an individual against an individual different considerations might arise. But this is not such a case. In my opinion, where a scheme formulated by the Government is attacked on the ground of its being discriminatory the position is precisely the same as if a statute is attacked as being discriminatory and it can never be an answer to such an attack that persons likely to be benefited by a discriminatory statute should be brought before the Court before the statute is struck down." In A.V.R. Siddhanti (supra) the enunciation of law in the case of B. Gopalaiah (supra) was approved by the Supreme Court. It was observed (at Page 1759 of the Report) : "The respondent-petitioners are impeaching the validity of those policy decisions on the ground of their being violative of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The proceedings are analogous to those in which the constitutionality of a statutory rule regulating seniority of Government servant is assailed. In such proceedings the necessary parties to be impleaded are those against whom the relief is sought, and in whose absence no effective decision can be rendered by the Court. In the present case, the relief is claimed only against the Railway which has been impleaded through its representative. No list or order fixing seniority of the petitioners vis-a-vis particular individuals, pursuant to the impugned decisions, is being challenged. The employees who were likely to be affected as a result of the re-adjustment of the petitioner's seniority...were, at the most, proper parties and not necessary parties, and their non-joinder could not be fatal to the writ petition." The same view was reiterated in A. Janardhana (AIR 1983 Supreme Court 769 at Page 784). 16. Counsel for the petitioners contended that if the Court comes to the conclusion that the other selected candidates are necessary parties, they should be given opportunity to add them as parties but the writ petitions cannot be dismissed on the ground" of non-joinder. I have considered the above submission. I have already said above that even according to the petitioners, the appointment of the rest of the selected candidates except 338 as found by Shri D.N. Gautam, is not under cloud. I have considered the above submission. I have already said above that even according to the petitioners, the appointment of the rest of the selected candidates except 338 as found by Shri D.N. Gautam, is not under cloud. Thus, even if we were to go into the individual cases, their addition as party respondents would be, if I may say so, a futile exercise and not proper and warranted. In the case of Prabodh Verma and others v. State of U.P. (AIR 1985 Supreme Court 167) relied upon by the counsel for the petitioners, there was inter se dispute between two sets of teachers and the question for consideration in substance related to the validity of two Ordinances. In that context, it was observed that "at least some of them being before it as respondents in representative capacity if their number is too large to join them as respondents individually". The General rule, however, was laid down in these words, "A High Court ought not to hear and dispose of a writ petition under Art. 226 without the persons who would be vitally affected by its judgment before it" and it was held that the High Court ought not to have disposed of the writ petitions in the absence of the reserve pool teachers. The decision in Prabodh Verma (supra) is, therefore, of little help to the petitioners. 17. The cases of the aforementioned 338 selected candidates, which is the larger circle of disputed cases and include within its fold the said 24 candidates mentioned in the report of Shri Maiku Ram, stand on different footing. I do not propose to dismiss the writ petitions on the ground of nonjoinder of the said 338 selected candidates minus the 27 who have already been added as party-respondents during the pendency of the case as I do not propose to go into the question of their eligibility or fitness and record a finding in that behalf in this proceeding. It is, therefore, not necessary to make each of them as party-respondents so as to give them an opportunity of hearing in view of the general order that I propose to pass. 18. Before I do that I would like to deal with the decision relied upon by the counsel for the petitioners in the case of Krishan Yadav and anr. 18. Before I do that I would like to deal with the decision relied upon by the counsel for the petitioners in the case of Krishan Yadav and anr. v. The State of Haryana and others [ (1994) 4 SCC 165 ]. The decision was employed to buttress the plea that it is open to the writ court to quash the entire selection on the ground of fraud and arbitrariness even after four years or to direct enquiry by an independent agency like CBI as had been done in that case. The Supreme Court on consideration of the materials found that the entire selection was vitiated by red-tapism, favouritism and arbitrariness. After referring to specific instances the court held (at Page 175) : "It may not be too much to draw an inference that all these were motivated by extraneous considerations. Otherwise, how does one account for selection without interview, fake and ghost interviews, tampering with the final records, fabricating documents, forgery? Each of this would attract the penal provisions of Indian Penal Code. They have been done with impunity." The facts of the case were quite telling. I regret, on the facts as stated in the instant writ petitions, I do not feel inspired to pass same or similar orders drawing inspiration from the said judgment. 19. Shri D.N. Gautam has mentioned the names of persons who, in his opinion, suffer from one or the other kind of ineligibility, as being either short in height or chest or weight (in the case of female candidates) or those who are flat-footed or have knocking-knees or are otherwise handicapped, in different categories annexed to the Range Order dated September 9, 1994. Mr. Tara Kant Jha, learned counsel for some of the petitioners was at pains to point out how candidates in large number suffering from one or the other type of ineligibility or disability have been selected. To illustrate, specific reference was made to the case of Ashok Mahto mentioned in Annexure-4 whose two legs measure 88 cms. and 91.5 cms. and is said to limp in his movement. Sushil Kumar and Jagdish Prasad Sharma are said to be suffering from eye-disease and Leucoderma respectively. Counsel submitted that these persons were examined by Shri Maiku Ram but only as regards their height and chest; he did not go into their disability as noticed by Shri Gautam. and 91.5 cms. and is said to limp in his movement. Sushil Kumar and Jagdish Prasad Sharma are said to be suffering from eye-disease and Leucoderma respectively. Counsel submitted that these persons were examined by Shri Maiku Ram but only as regards their height and chest; he did not go into their disability as noticed by Shri Gautam. Counsel submitted that although Shri Maiku Ram found only 24 candidates unfit but as would appear from the particulars mentioned in his report, most of the other candidates were found to be just fulfilling the minimum height and chest and other requirements. According to the counsel, this shows a deliberate attempt on his part to somehow prove that they possess the minimum eligibility otherwise it is difficult to explain how they all would be found just 165 cms. in height or having chest measurement of just 81 (unexpanded) and 86 (expanded) cms. which are the minimum requirements. Counsel stated that the instances (many instances were cited during course of hearing) are only illustrative and not exhaustive. 20. I do not want to go into the correctness of findings recorded by either Shri D.N. Gautam or Shri Maiku Ram. Any finding of this Court in that regard would virtually amount to holding persons concerned unfit for appointment. This can be done only after proper verification. According to the State, Medical Board has been constituted to examine the fitness of the candidates. We hope that so far as the medical fitness of the candidates is concerned, the Medical Board will examine the persons concerned and submit a proper report. The question of eligibility, as regards height, chest, weight etc. however, stands on the different footing. The medical fitness of the candidates is different from the eligibility. That aspect has already been dealt with above. A person may be medically fit but short in height etc. or suffering from any disease - constitutional affliction or bodily infirmity rendering him unfit or likely to make him unfit for police duties and, therefore, ineligible. Having regard to the widespread criticism of selection of ineligible and unfit candidates, that is, candidates who do not possess the necessary height, chest measurements etc. or suffer from any physical infirmity, bodily affliction etc. Having regard to the widespread criticism of selection of ineligible and unfit candidates, that is, candidates who do not possess the necessary height, chest measurements etc. or suffer from any physical infirmity, bodily affliction etc. which finds corroboration from the report of Shri D.N. Gautam and, to some extent, from the report of Shri Maiku Ram as well, it would be just and porper to get the same examined afresh. That would inspire people's faith in the selection process and Administration. The State is not only required to act fairly, it must also appear to the public that it has so acted. Who would be entrusted' the task of verification? At one stage, I thought, the job should be assigned to an independent body. However, there is nothing on the record to create doubt about the bona fides of the DGP, the Head of the Selection Committee. I would, accordingly, ask the DGP to verify the fitness of candidates mentioned in the report of Shri D.N. Gautam (which includes the names of 24 persons found to be unfit by Shri Maiku Ram) also as regards their fitness within the meaning of Rule 658 (iv) of the Police Manual and height, chest requirements etc. as mentioned in the advertisement. In order to impart more credibility to the verification process I would ask him to associate two Senior Officers, one from the Army and the other from the Central Reserve Police Force, as may be nominated by the Brigadier, Bihar & Orissa Sub-Area and the Inspector-General, CRPF, Bihar respectively. The verification should be completed as early as possible, preferably within a period of two months, Candidates found to be unfit will be removed. The ongoing training will not be deemed to confer any right on such persons. Their joining, as noticed above, has been accepted provisionally. Even if it was final, as the ineligibility or unfitness for the post goes to the root of the matter, the same would hardly have made any difference. 21. In the result, these writ petitions are dismissed but subject to observations and directions made above. There will be no order as to costs. Amir Das, J.-I agree.