Judgment D. P. Wadhwa, C. J. , S. J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. In these three writ applications the petitioners, who number four, have challenged the orders of respondent Nos.2 and 3, being the District and Sessions Judge, Nalanda and the Selection Committee (for the appointment of Staff Grade III in the district courts at Nalanda) cancelling the examination of the petitioners for appointment to the post of clerks in the judgeship of Nalanda. 2. Examination of all these four petitioners was cancelled on the ground that they had put their names in the answer book conducted for the recruitment which was in violation of the specific instruction/caution contained on the first page of the answer book which was to the following effect: "candidates are directed not to write any answer on the first page of the answer book either side. They must write their full name and Roll No. which is same as the memo No. of call letter. They must not put any Identifying mark on any portion of the answer book otherwise the same will be liable to be cancelled. " 3. This instruction clearly forbade the candidates from writing their names or putting any identification mark on any portion of the answer book. They were thus categorically told that if they violated these instructions their examination was liable to be cancelled. It is not in dispute that the petitioners did put identification mark by writing their names in the answer books contrary to the aforesaid instructions. Their answer books were evaluated and they secured high marks and then they were called for interview and it was at that time that their examination was cancelled. At the time of interview, it would appear, the answer books of the petitioners were examined. 4. Their answer books were evaluated and they secured high marks and then they were called for interview and it was at that time that their examination was cancelled. At the time of interview, it would appear, the answer books of the petitioners were examined. 4. The petitioners have raised two contentions : (i) their examination was cancelled on the instructions issued by the Inspecting Judge of this Court to the district and Sessions Judge, Nalanda, and, (ii) their case was covered by the decision of a Learned Single Judge of this Court in C. W. J. C. No.15 of 1994 (Sima Rani V/s. The State of Bihar and others decided on April 26,1995), where also the petitioner had written her name in the answer book for the same very examination and her examination was cancelled and yet this Court issued a writ of mandamus to the appointing authority to consider her case for appointment as a clerk in the Nalanda judgeship. Following this judgment of the Learned single Judge, another learned single Judge of this Court also allowed the writ application of another petitioner similarly situated in C. W. J. C. No.1276 of 1994 (Shyam Krishna jamuar V/s. The State of Bihar and another by judgment dated August 28, 1996. However, two other Learned Judges of this Court, one in C. W. J. C. No.13343 of 1993 and the other in C. W. J. C. Nos.1724 and 2160 of 1994 disagreed with the view expressed earlier by the learned single Judge in C. W. J. C. No.15 of 1994 and referred the matter to a larger Bench. That is how the matter is now before us. 5. We have heard Mr. Basudeva prasad, Senior Advocate in all these matters. He strongly relied on the decision of the Learned single Judge of this Court in C. W. J. C. No.15 of 1994. We may not, therefore, as to what the learned single Judge had to say in that case in allowing the writ application of sima Rani. 5. We have heard Mr. Basudeva prasad, Senior Advocate in all these matters. He strongly relied on the decision of the Learned single Judge of this Court in C. W. J. C. No.15 of 1994. We may not, therefore, as to what the learned single Judge had to say in that case in allowing the writ application of sima Rani. He gave principally two reasons: (i) If there was any violation of the caution given in the question paper cancellation of the candidature could be done at the time of evaluation of the answer book and not later; (ii) Caution did not prohibit writing of names by the candidates specifically at any place in the answer book except on the first page and even the caution only said that putting of identification marks could be a ground for cancellation of the candidature and it did not say that it would necessarily result in cancellation of the candidature. 6. Then the Learned single Judge also noticed that in the counter-affidavit it had been stated that the candidature of Sima Rani had been cancelled by the appointment Committee in the light of the direction of the Hon ble Inspecting judge. Further the Learned single Judge observed that the direction contained in the letter of the Inspecting Judge was not strictly followed which required that if in the course of interview any doubt arose about the merit of the candidate then a reference could be made to the answer book. Perhaps, from this it could be inferred that the Learned Single judge was of the view that at the time of interview the answer book could not be looked into after these having been evaluated unless there was doubt about the merit of the candidate and looking into the answer book at the stage of interview was, therefore, not correct and that the violation of the instruction not to write identifying mark should be condoned. 7. It could not be disputed that there had been violation of the instructions by the petitioners and that they did put identification marks by writing their names in the body of their answer books. We would not like to comment if there was a deliberate attempt on the part of the petitioners to do so. 7. It could not be disputed that there had been violation of the instructions by the petitioners and that they did put identification marks by writing their names in the body of their answer books. We would not like to comment if there was a deliberate attempt on the part of the petitioners to do so. The learned single Judge, who referred the matter to the larger Bench, did observe that in the case of these petitioners and in the case of Sima Rani, C. W. J. C. No.15 of 1994), there appeared to be a definite pattern in disclosing their full names, etc. in the answer-books and he wondered that all of them secured higher marks and were called for inter-view. Be that as it may, we would not like to enter into this controversy. Whether the names as written in the answer book is deliberate or not is immaterial. If there is violation of the mandatory instruction, the examination could be cancelled. There is no doubt that there has been clear violation of the caution as giving of name amounts to putting the identification marks. We are unable to subscribe to the view of the Learned single Judge in Sima Ranis lease. To us it appears that if violation of the caution is found at any stage before the appointment is made the same could be cancelled. We are not going into the question if the appointment could be cancelled even after it had been. made. Simply because written examination was not cancelled at the time of evaluation of the answer book could be no ground to confer benefit on the candidate, who had violated the Caution. That Caution had been inserted with the sole object of maintaining purity in the examination. Coding and decoding is done for the purpose that the examiner may not be able to know the name of the candidate. If the candidate gives his name in the answer book then in that case the very object of coding and decoding would be frustrated and the purity of the examination would not be maintained. To say that the examination could be cancelled only at the stage of evaluation of the answer book would be putting at naught the very purpose for which the caution was inserted. 8. To say that the examination could be cancelled only at the stage of evaluation of the answer book would be putting at naught the very purpose for which the caution was inserted. 8. With due respect we are unable to subscribe the reasonings adopted by the Learned single Judge in Sima Ranis case. The reasonings to our mind are too wide and would make the Caution wholly infructuous. We think in such case, it is best to leave it to the Selection committee as to how it views the matter as to whether there has been any violation of any Instruction or not. In the present case admittedly, as noted above, there has been violation of the Caution. To say that this violation should have been taken note of at the time of evaluation or that it did not specifically say that the examination would necessarily be cancelled if any identification mark is put is not the correct approach to the problem. We do not think it is for the Court to say at which stage of completion of examination and appointment process the authority is barred from looking into the violation of its instructions to the candidate which would affect the ultimate result. In exercising its power of judicial review the Court has to exercise some restraint and should not rush to interfere in each and every matter. 9. The Selection Committee in the present case was comprised of the district and Sessions Judge and two Additional District and Sessions Judges. It took note of the communication addressed by the Inspecting Judge of this court sent through his Secretary. We, however, find from the minutes that the selection Committee independently applied their mind and came to unanimous conclusion that since the petitioner had put their identifying mark on their answer books which clearly violated the Caution, the examination be cancelled. It is immaterial that the Committee took the decision at the time of interview. We, therefore, do not find any merit in these writ applications which are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Rule is discharged. Application Dismissed.