Judgment The petitioner, in this application has, inter alia, prayed for issuance of a writ of or in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to quash, cancel and rescind the call letter for further written interview for the post of Lower Division Clerk, as contained in Annexure 'E' to the writ application, and for a further direction upon the respondents to take interview as per result of written test declared by them as contained in Annexure 'C' to the writ application. 2. The fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass. 3. The petitioner is a Graduate in Science. He got himself enrolled in the Local Employment Exchange. A post of Class III staff fell vacant in the Judgeship of Murshidabad, in relation whereto an intimation was sent to the Employment Exchange. A written examination was held wherein the position of the petitioner was at serial No. 1. He was asked to appear at an interview by an office memo dated 18.5.96 as contained in Annexure 'E' to the writ application. It appears that the entire proceedings in connection with selection in Group C cadre was stayed by the Selection Committee, in terms of an order dated 26.4.96. The said order is contained in Annexure 'D' to the writ application, but despite the same, the petitioner was asked to appear at the interview. When the interview had been held no test in typing had been taken. The petitioner thereafter filed a representation but the same had not been replied to. An affidavit-in-opposition had been filed on behalf of the District Judge by one Sri Rathindra Nath Mukherjee, Assistant Accountant. He was not competent to swear the said affidavit. However, in the said affidavit, two reasons had been assigned for passing of the said order dated 26.4.96, which are : (i) that the Government circular dated 24.4.80 as contained in Annexure 'Z' to the affidavit-in-opposition which was preceded by some other requirements in terms whereof promotional opportunity to Group D staff should be given, had not been adhered to; (ii) in the notification of vacancies to the Employment Exchange, typing was made an essential qualification. 4. The matter was heard on 5.8.98, when it was found that Annexure 'Z' to the affidavit-in-opposition might have been interpolated. 4. The matter was heard on 5.8.98, when it was found that Annexure 'Z' to the affidavit-in-opposition might have been interpolated. Thereafter, a detailed order had been passed on 5.8.98, in terms whereof the Additional Registrar, Vigilance of this Court was directed to make an enquiry. Pursuant to the said order, an enquiry has been held by the Additional Registrar, Vigilance. He had not only examined the concerned persons of the Judgeship, but has also examined the Employment Exchange Officer. It appears from the record that the then Sheristadar Sri Amal Sen suppressed a corrigendum issued to the Employment Exchange Officer, in terms whereof typing was not an essential qualification, but merely a desirable one. The Additional Registrar, Vigilance, therefore, had come to the following conclusion:- "From my above finding, it can now reasonably be concluded that typing examination was not the essential qualification in the first examination and since no fresh requisition was sent by the District Judge to the Employment Officer, Kandi, the inclusion of typing test was not in accordance with the normal of natural Justice. In fact, I am here to mention that the document i.e. Exhibit 2' corrigendum excluding the type test is not in the file of the office of the District Judge, so, it is but logical to hold that there was an attempt to suppress these vital aspect, i.e. omission of typing test. To sum up (a) typing test was not the essential qualifications; (b) the document 'Corrigendum' (Exhibit 2') was suppressed." He further pointed out that apart from Sri Amal Sen the then Sheristadar who was responsible for the irregularity, the then District Judge, Sri Nilmoni Mukherji also acted indifferently and casually. It was found:- "Under such circumstances, I cannot but hold Shri Amal Sen, the then Sheristadar responsible for this irregularity. It is relevant to mention here that Shri Amal Sen retired on 30.4.97. Although in the midst of multifarious business, it is not possible for a District Judge to keep close look at everything I may humbly submit that Sri Nilmoni Mukherji also acted indifferently and casually. First he stopped further processing of recruitment and then cancelled the examination. As regards the plea of non-inclusion of the departmental candidates, he could have easily obtained the opinion of the G.P. or referred the matter to the L.R. before canceling the examination. He did not do it. First he stopped further processing of recruitment and then cancelled the examination. As regards the plea of non-inclusion of the departmental candidates, he could have easily obtained the opinion of the G.P. or referred the matter to the L.R. before canceling the examination. He did not do it. He also did not think it necessary to do everything afresh for a fresh test when the earlier examination was cancelled. While he did not sent a fresh requisition, he did not also ask the Selection Body to omit typing test as one of the compulsory subjects for examination. Therefore, the then District Judge also appears to me partly at fault. I have gathered from the office that Sri Nilmoni Mukherji, the then District Judge also retired from the service." The report of the Additional Registrar, Vigilance, makes the position abundantly clear that the first examination held by the selection committee was proper and valid. Even if there was any circular as regards grant of promotional benefit to Class IV employees, it is now admitted that no candidate from Class IV employees had applied for the said post. 5. This writ petition, therefore, succeeds. The respondents are hereby directed to forbear from giving effect to or acting pursuant to or in furtherance of the order as contained in Annexure 'E' to the writ application. They are further directed to proceed with the selection process in terms of the original notification. All process should be completed and appointment in the post in question must be made at an early date and not later than 6 weeks from the date of communication of this order. In the facts and circumstances, the petitioner is also entitled to costs. Counsel fee assessed at 100 Gms. 6. Let the records be placed before the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice for taking suitable departmental action, if any, against the erring Officers. The Registrar, Appellate Side is directed to send a copy of this order along with a copy of the report of the Additional Registrar, Vigilance to the District Judge, Murshidabad. Urgent xerox certified copy be supplied within 3 days. Let a plain copy of the order countersigned by Asstt. Registrar (Court) be given to learned Counsel for the respondents for communication to the Judicial Department.