ORDER Srivastava, J. -- 1. The petitioners in writ Petition No. 1477 of 1998. who are the member of Shiksha Samiti. Janpad Panchayat, Badarwas, district Shivpuri, have approached this Court invoking its jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India in the large public interest seeking a direction requiring the respondents, which include the State of Madhya Pradesh, the Prescribed Authority and Collector, district Shivpuri as well as the Janpad Panchayat Badarwas, district Shivpuri, not to terminate the services of Shiksha-Kannis category III, who had been selected, appointed and were working in the Janpad Panchayat Badarwas.• They have further prayed for the quashing of the order passed by the Collector/Competent Authority cancelling the selection of the Shiksha Kannis Category III as well as direction issued by the said authority in its order dated 22.8.1998 calling upon the members of the Shiksha Samiti, Janpad Panchayat, Badarwas to attend the interview scheduled to be held afresh on 26th,27th and 28th of August, 1998 for the selection of Shiksha Kanni, category III making it clear in the said order that on their failure to attend the interview of discharging their duties proceedings under Section 40 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam will be initiated against them, which direction was disclosed to have been issued in the purported exercise of the jurisdiction envisaged under Section 86(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993. 2. On 7.9.1999 the Government Advocate, representing the respondents No. 1 and 2, had stated that by the order dated 22.8.1998, copy of which had been filed as Annexure-PII to the writ petition, a resolution dated 22.8.1998 was sought to be enforced by respondent No. 2 exercising the jurisdiction envisaged under Section 86(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993. It was further stated that the order dated 22.8.1998 passed by the respondent No.2 purported to implement the decision taken in the meeting dated 22.8.98. Since neither alongwith the writ petition nor alongwith the counter-affidavit/return filed by respondents No. 1 and 2 the copy of the resolution adopted in the meeting dated 22.8.1998 had been annexed and in the counter affidavit/return filed by respondent No.. Since neither alongwith the writ petition nor alongwith the counter-affidavit/return filed by respondents No. 1 and 2 the copy of the resolution adopted in the meeting dated 22.8.1998 had been annexed and in the counter affidavit/return filed by respondent No.. 3 the Janpad Panchayat, reference had been made to an enquiry against the selection finalised on the basis of the proceedings initiated pursuant to the advertisement published on 15.5.1998 in Nav Prabhat daily news paper but neither the nature of the complaint nor the decision taken either by the respondent No.2 or respondent No. 3 had been brought on record. The respondent No.3 was directed to produce the entire record relating to the impugned action including the nature of the complaints and the orders passed thereon. 3. Since, the learned counsel representing the respondent No.3 had stated that some part of the proceedings were lying in the office of respondent No.2 the learned Government Advocate representing the said respondent was directed to make available that part of the record. The relevant record relating to the proceedings culminating in the impugned direction was produced during the hearing of this writ petition which has been perused. 4. The petitioners in the aforesaid writ petition had asserted that a selection had been held for recruitment of Shiksha-karmis Category III in the proceedings held subsequent to the advertisement dated 12.5.1998 inviting applications for the purposer which was published on 19.5.1998 in the daily news paper Nav Prabhat. However cancelling the aforesaid selection, under the impugned order fresh proceedings for holding the interview contemplated under Rule 5(9) of Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Karmis (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1997 was scheduled for being held afresh on 26th, 27th and 28th August 1998. The total number of posts which were sought to be filled up was 264 so far as Janpad Panchayat Badarwas was concerned. According to these petitioners the entire selection process which included the interviews/oral tests had been concluded before 28th of July 1998 on which date appointment orders had been issued to the selected candidated who were required to join their respective postings. Thereafter while academic sessions was in full swing the selection proceedings were cancelled requiring the members of the Shiksha Samiti to hold fresh interviews. Thereafter while academic sessions was in full swing the selection proceedings were cancelled requiring the members of the Shiksha Samiti to hold fresh interviews. It was on 23rd of August 1998 that the petitioners had come to know by news item published in daily news paper' Swadesh' that the appointment of Shiksha Karmis had been cancelled by the Collector with the exception of those who had to their credit teaching experience for 2-3 years as Shiksha Karmis and direction had been issued for holding interviews afresh on 26th, 27th and 28th of August 1998. It was on 24th August 1998 that they had received the impugned order containing the direction dated 22.8.1998, referred to here in above. 5. The petitioners claimed that the recruitment procedure relating to Shiksha Karmis had been conducted and concluded in accordance with the procedure of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam and M.P. Panchayat Shiksha Karmi (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules 1997. The Janpad Panchayat had passed the resolution and thereafter the selected Shiksha Karmis were appointed and had joined their duties. It was claimed that the impugned action was entirely without jurisdiction and in fact amounted to unwarranted interference in the decision of the Shiksha Samiti as well as the panchayat which could not be interfered with by the Prescribed Authority in exercise of his executive power. 6. It was also claimed that the impugned action was violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution as a large number of employed youths were to be deprived of their livelihood by the arbitrary action of respondent No.2. 7. In opposition to the writ petition a counter-affidavit fretum was filed by respondent No.3, Janpad Panchayat on 26.7.1999. They raised an objection to the maintainability of the writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus asserting that before approaching this Court the petitioner had not taken any step to get their grievances redressed from the respondent/authorities and since there had been no request on their behalf to get their grievances redressed, which was shown to have been met with its refusal the writ petition filed by them was liable to the dismissed at the threshold. It was also asserted that the petitioners could not be taken to fall within the ambit of "aggrieved person" so as to maintain the writ petition as no statutory or legal right vesting in them could be taken to have been infringed. In fact, it is asserted that there was no such allegation and therefore on this count also the writ petition was liable to be dismissed. It was also asserted that the petitioners had not filed a copy of the order cancelling the selection alongwith the writ petition and in that view of the matter also the writ petition deserved dismissal. 8. In the counter-affidavit/return filed by the Janpad 'vanchayat it was asserted that the Selection Committee for the selection of the Shiksha Karmis with the petitioner No. 2 as its Chairman and the remaining petitioners as its members had prepared a select-list of the suitable candidates for appointment against the vacant posts of Shiksha Karmis Category III. Complaints had been filed against the aforesaid select-list before the respondent No.2, who after making an enquiry had directed for fresh interviews to be held for selection of the Shiksha Karmis Category III for appointment against the vacancies in the posts in various gram-panchayats of district shivpuri including the respondent NO.3. The select-list had also been cancelled. The complaints were in regard to its non-observance of the rules providing reservation and selection being made contrary to the rules without considering the merits. 9. It was claimed that the impugned direction was well within jurisdiction. The Janpad Panchayat made it clear that after holding the interviews the Selection Committee had issued a fresh select-list taking into consideration the merit of all the candidates. The fresh Select-list excluded about 56 candidates who had been shown in the select-list prepared earlier which had been cancelled. This elimination• was on account of these candidates being less meritorious and their placement in the merit-list was found to be contrary to the rules having statutory force. 10. The respondent No.3 had stated that all the petititioners were members of the selection-committee constituted under the Rules of 1997 for the selection of Shiksha Karmis Category III. These persons themselves had violated the statutory rules and had ignored the prescribed norms while preparing the select-list which has been cancelled. 10. The respondent No.3 had stated that all the petititioners were members of the selection-committee constituted under the Rules of 1997 for the selection of Shiksha Karmis Category III. These persons themselves had violated the statutory rules and had ignored the prescribed norms while preparing the select-list which has been cancelled. These petitioners themselves, it was pointed out, in the fresh selection which had been held on 26th, 27th and 28th of August 1998 had issued a fresh select-list eliminating about 56 candidates who had been included in the first select-list. This, it is pointed out, is sufficient to indicate are that the petitioners having themselves realised their mistake and had rectified the same by issuing a fresh select-list. In the circumstances, it is urged that they are not entitled to be heard and the whole attempt on their part is to get restored the illegalities committed by them while preparing the first select-list which has been cancelled. The intention, it was indicated, appears to be to get their illegality perpetuated and it was not a fit case for intervention of equity. 11. During the pendency of the writ petition, I.A.No. 6637/99 was filed praying for permission to amend the writ petition. In this application it was alleged that after the issuance of the order dated 22.8.1998, on 22.9.1998 the Collector Shivpuri had passed an order holding that various irregularities had been committed by the Janpad Panchayat Badarwas. No copy of the aforesaid order was however filed alongwith the said application. The said order was sought to be challenged as illegal and arbitrary having been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. In the application it was prayed that the order passed by the Collector Shivpuri dated 22.9.1998 and the consequential proceedings may be quashed. But, as indicated above, no copy of the said order was annexed alongwith the application and was not brought on record. 12. The State as well as the Collector, the respondents No. 1 and 2 filed a separate counter affidavit/return in opposition to the writ petition. But, as indicated above, no copy of the said order was annexed alongwith the application and was not brought on record. 12. The State as well as the Collector, the respondents No. 1 and 2 filed a separate counter affidavit/return in opposition to the writ petition. In the aforesaid counter-affidavit/return filed on 23.8.1999 it was asserted that the Collector Shivpuri was the prescribed authority under the provisions of the Act and the State in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (XXI) of Section 2 read with sub-section (3) of Section 93 of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam had issued a notification in which the prescribed authority under Section 86 (1) and (2) of Gram-Panchayats had been nominated. The Collector/Additional Collector was nominated as such authority for Janpad Panchayat and for Zila Panchayat, the Divisional Commissioner/Additional Divisional Commissioner had been nominated as the prescribed authority. In this return, it was also indicated that the order dated 22.8.1998 which has been impugned in the writ petition had been passed by respondent No.2 in the capacity of the prescribed authority contemplated under Section 86(1) of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam 1993 and under the Rule 3(b) of the M.P. Panchayat (Appeal and Revision) Rules 1995 an appeal is provided before the Commissioner against an order passed by the Collector under any provisions of the Act or Rule or bye laws made thereunder. 13. The respondents No. 1 and 2, as indicated above, have raised an objection that an alternative remedy of appeal stood provided to the petitioners which had not been availed of and in such a situtation no interference was called for by this Court in exercise of its extra ordinary discretionary jurisdiction envisaged under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 14. The respondents No. 1 and 2 further asserted that the impugned order could not in my manner be taken to have infringed any statutory or legal right of the petitioners and as such the petitioners have no locus standi to maintain the writ petition. 15. The aforesaid respondents further asserted that they were adopting the pleas set-up in the return filed by the respondent No.3. 16. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the record. 17. The recruitment of the Shiksha Karmis is regulated by the statutory provisions contained in the M.P. Panchayat Shiksha Karmi (Recruitment & Conditions of Service) Rules, 1997. 16. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the record. 17. The recruitment of the Shiksha Karmis is regulated by the statutory provisions contained in the M.P. Panchayat Shiksha Karmi (Recruitment & Conditions of Service) Rules, 1997. The appointing authority in respect of Shiksha Karmi has been defined under Section 2(b) of the Rules as the authority mentioned in column 5 of Schedule I of the Rules. The Selection Committee is also defined under Section 2(c) of the Rules as the Selection Committee constituted to appoint Shiksha Karmis as provided in the Schedule II and IV respectively. The recruitment in the cadre of Shiksha Karmi subsequent to the commencement of the aforesaid rules is required to be made either by direct recruitment by selection or by promotion as specified in' Schedule IV of the Rules. 18. For Shiksha Karmi Grade-III, the Janpadlanchayat is the appointing authority as provided in Schedule-I. The selection committee for Shiksha Karmi Grade-III consists of Chairperson standing committee of Education of Janpad Panchayat, Chief.. Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Block Education Officer (Member Secretary), two specialists in the subject to be nominated by the standing committee for Education of whom one shall be woman and all the members of the standing committee of Education, of whom atleast one should belong to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe or other backward class and in case there is no scheduled caste/scheduled tribe/other backward class member in the standing committee of Education, then the same has to be nominated from the General body. The Education Committee as I provided under Section 47 of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 is constituted for education including the adult education, social welfare of the disabled and the destitutes, women and child welfare, removal of unsociability, relief of distress caused by floods, drought, earthquakes, hail storm, scarcity; locusts warms and other such emergencies, temperance or prohibition, health and sanitation, tribal and harijan welfare. With the Act No. 26 of 1994, every Janpad Panchayat is required to constitute such a committee from amongst its elected members. Thus, the members of the education committee arc the elected members of the Zila as well as the Janpad Panchayat. 19. With the Act No. 26 of 1994, every Janpad Panchayat is required to constitute such a committee from amongst its elected members. Thus, the members of the education committee arc the elected members of the Zila as well as the Janpad Panchayat. 19. The petitioners as has alreay been noticed hereinabove are the members of the Shiksha Samiti (Education Committee) of Janpad panchayat, Badarwas, district Shivpuri constituted under Section 47 of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993. They were members of the selection committee contemplated under the Rules referred to hereinabove for preparing the select list on the basis of the assessment of the candidates in order of merit in accordance with the procedure prescribed and the criterion laid down under the provisions contained in Rules 5, sub-rule (1) to (9) (ii) of the M.P. Panchayat Shiksha Karmi (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1997. The interview contemplated under Rule 5(9) of the Rules was scheduled to take place on 26th, 27th and 28th of August, 1998 as provided under the impugned order passed by the Collector on 22.8.1998. The writ petition was presented in this Court by the present petitioners on 27.8.1998. No interim order had been granted staying the operation of the direction contained in the order dated 22.8.98 requiring the petitioners to attend the interview. 20. In the return filed by the Janpad Panchayat, Badarwas, the respondent No.3, it has been asserted that the interview as directed had taken place and the selection committee had issued a fresh select list, wherein about 56 candidates whose names were included in the first select list had been eliminated and their names had not been included in the fresh select list on a due consideration of the merit and other requirements as contemplated under Rule 5 of the Rules. 21. The aforesaid counter-affidavit/return filed by the Janpad Panchayat has been adopted by the respondents No. 1 and 2. This indicates that the petitioners who had prepared the select list earlier had themselves on a reconsideration found their assessment to be incorrect in view of serveral defects which necessitated removal of the names of 56 candidates on the detection of the mistake or error in preparing the list in accordance with the statutory provisions. 22. The petitioners have not filed nay rejoinder-affidavit denying or controverting the assertions made in the counter-affidavit/return filed by the respondents. 22. The petitioners have not filed nay rejoinder-affidavit denying or controverting the assertions made in the counter-affidavit/return filed by the respondents. If there had been no mistake in the preparation of the select list adhering to the statutory provisions and following the manner prescribed, there could be no occasion for any alteration in the select list already prepared. These petitioners who had conducted the interviews on 26th, 27th and 28th of August. 1998 did not stick to their earlier assessment asserting that the select list prepared earlier did not require any alteration or change: 23. It may noticed in this connection that in the case of Union Territory of' Chandigorh v. Dilbagh Singh and others, reported in 1993(1) SCC 154 , the Apex Court had observed that affording of an opportunity of hearing by an Administration to the members of the Selection Board constituted by it before cancelling a dubious select list of candidates for appointment to civil posts prepared by such Selection Board is not and cannot be a requirement of either law or any principle of natural justice. It was indicated by the Apex Court in its aforesaid decision that it is so for the reason that no member of a Selection Board acquires any vested right or interest in sustaining a select list prepared by the Selection Board. It was further indicated that besides, there is no personal right or interest of any member of a Selection Board which could adversely affected. by the Administration cancelling a select List of candidates prepared by a Selection Board when it is found to have been prepared by the Selection Board in unfair and injudicious manner. Therefore, it was indicated that 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 to a civil post prepared by it. 24. The Apex Court had further observed that the failure on the part of the complainants to establish charges of corruption levelled against the members of the Selection Board could not have saved the select list, if it was otherwise found to be dubious and prepared in unfair and injudicious manner. 24. The Apex Court had further observed that the failure on the part of the complainants to establish charges of corruption levelled against the members of the Selection Board could not have saved the select list, if it was otherwise found to be dubious and prepared in unfair and injudicious manner. such as awarding inflated marks for push up the candidates who had got poor marks for their educational qualifications or deflating the marks to pull down the candidates who had got high marks for their educational qualifications. 25. The ratio of the aforesaid decision in our considered opinion stands squarely attracted in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 26. In the present case, the petitioners who are the members of the selection committee are the elected members. They are not experts that is why while enacting the Rules. it seems to use laborate provisions have been made laying down various criterion which had to be taken into account while awarding the marks and preparing the select list. 27. It must not be lost sight of that the foundation of democracy is faith in the capacities of human nature and faith in human intelligence and further in the power of pooled and co-operative experience. An onerous duty stood cast under the statutory rules upon these members to prepare a select list strictly adhering to the criterion which were prescribed under the rules referred to hereinabove. They had themselves on a reassessment found the select list prepared by them earlier to be such which did not reflect that it had been prepared as required by law and necessitated correction and rectification so as to reflect that merit was the sole criterion. 28. In the circumstances indicated here in above, without going any further, we are of the considered opinion that no case for the intervention of equity has been made out. Even otherwise, taking into consideration the observations of the Apex Court in its decision in the case of Union Territory of Chandigarh (supra) to which a reference has been made above, we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition as a public interest litigation. 29. Even otherwise, taking into consideration the observations of the Apex Court in its decision in the case of Union Territory of Chandigarh (supra) to which a reference has been made above, we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition as a public interest litigation. 29. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances as brought on record, specially when the petitioners members cannot be deemed to have any personal right or interest which could be adversely affected by the cancellation of the select list of candidates prepared by them earlier and further that they were not required to be afforded an opportunity of hearing before the cancellation of the select list in question, no justifiable ground can be said to have been made out for any interference at the instance of the present petitioners as sought for while exercising the extra-ordinary jurisdiction envisaged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 30. We are further of the view that the only effort of the present petitioners who are the elected members constituting the Selection Committee appears to be to get their original select list which had been cancelled revived and sutained even though they themselves had admitted miner mistake and had rectified the same by revising the select list, which resulted in eliminating more than fifty candidates whose names had been brought in the earlier select list. Even after revising the select list, these members of the selection committee persisted in their attempt to get the earlier select list revived to perpetuate the wrong committed by them. 31. Considering the facts and circumstances in their totality, in view of our conclusions referred to hereinabove this writ petition fails and is dismissed with costs, which is quantified as Rs. 5000/- (rupees five thousand).