P. G. Agarwal, J.- By this common judgment we propose to dispose of 15 numbers of civil rules mentioned above preferred by the Union of India. These civil rules have arisen out of a common judgment passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench on 8.1.98 in OA No. 152 of 1996. 2. In pursuance of Employment Notice No. 1 of 1995 dated 26.4.95 the Railway Recruitment Board hereinafter referred as the RRB conducted the selection test for the posts of Stenographer (English). RRB held written test speed test and viva voce test and thereafter prepared a merit list of 16 candidates in order of merit. Although the panel was published by 9.11.95 no appointment was made. The Chairman, Railway Recruitment Board received certain complaints regarding alleged irregularities in the selection process and an enquiry was conducted through Vigilance Cell and thereafter by an order dated 5.9.96 the select panel was cancelled. The above mentioned 15 petitioners thereupon approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench for relief and the learned Tribunal vide the impugned order set aside and quashed the order of cancellation so far it relates to Stenographer (English). The respondents were d further directed to complete the process of recruitment within three months. Hence the present petitions. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for both sides. 4. The broad facts regarding selection and cancellation of the panel is not disputed. According to the learned Tribunal the selected candidates, that is, respondents in the present petition had acquired two rights, namely right to get employment and the right of being heard before any action prejudicial to them is taken. In the instant case, there is no dispute at the Bar that before cancelling the panel the respondents were not heard and no opportunity was given to them. Learned Tribunal therefore held : “We have no hesitation to hold that when the respondents had cancelled the Select Panel without affording an opportunity of being heard to the applicants before the cancellation was made, they had violated both the rights of the applicants.” 5. Now coming to the first proposition 35 to whether the respondents whose names appeared in the select list had acquire^ an indefeasible right to appoint in such post. Now coming to the first proposition 35 to whether the respondents whose names appeared in the select list had acquire^ an indefeasible right to appoint in such post. A Constitution Bench of Apex Court: in the case of Saankarasan Das vs. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 47 enunciated the legal position as follows: “It is not correct to say that if a number of vacancies are notified for appointment and adequate number of candidates are found fit, the successful candidate acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed which cannot be legitimately denied. Ordinarily the notification merely amounts 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 duty to»fill up all or any of the vacancies. However, it does not mean that the State has the licence 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 indiscrimination can be permitted. This correct position has been consistently followed by this Court, and we do not find any discordant note in the decisions in the State of Haryana vs. Subhash Chander Marwaha, Neelima Shangia (Miss) vs. State of Haryana or Jitender Kumar vs. State of Punjab.” The above proposition of law was reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of Union Territory of Chandigarh vs. Dilbagh Singh & others reported in (1993) 1 SCC 154 . It was further held that a selected candidate could be aggrieved by his non-appointment only when the Administration does so either arbitrarily or for no bona fide reasons. In the instant case the Railways have come up with a plea that the selection process was vitiated due to unfair and injudicious manner of selection. As quoted in para 4 of the impugned judgment, the respondents appellants before us had justified the cancellation of the panel on the following grounds: “(a) In the advertisement of Junior Stenographer, required qualification was mentioned only as Matriculate without indicating anything about the qualification of Diploma in shorthand and type-writing. As quoted in para 4 of the impugned judgment, the respondents appellants before us had justified the cancellation of the panel on the following grounds: “(a) In the advertisement of Junior Stenographer, required qualification was mentioned only as Matriculate without indicating anything about the qualification of Diploma in shorthand and type-writing. The advertisement also did not stipulate production of Diploma certificate. As a result, many of the candidates did not submit the same although they were qualified both in shorthand and typewriting and had Diploma certificate. However, the Railway Recruitment Board, Guwahati rejected the candidature of many eligible candidates on the ground of non-submission of Diploma certificate, thereby deserving eligible candidates were deprived of consideration for selection. (b) Sample test checks revealed mistakes in totalling in the written paper and in computation of marks which has resulted in empanelment of candidates securing less marks and exclusion of candidates securing more marks. (c) In the recruitment process, it has been found that all the three stages of testing, the knowledge and quality of the candidates have been handled by a single individual (Member Secretary, Railway Recruitment Board) instead of getting the works done by different qualified persons as under : (i) Setting of question paper for written test, (ii) Selection of dictation passage. (iii) Preparation of final mark-sheet including marks for viva-voce test only done by MS/RRB himself without any signature from other two members. This has raised doubts of malpractice by MS/RRB. (d) As per Board's extent instruction 15% of marks for written test and viva-voce together is required to be fixed for viva-voce. But in the subject selection, RRB/Guwahati had adopted 15% of the sum total of marks for written test (200 marks) shorthand test (300 marks) as well as viva-voce marks (90 marks). The marks of shorthand test (300) was therefore irregularly included in computing the marks for viva-voce test. This has allowed the selection authority undue flexibility in the final allocation of marks of a candidate though he might have secured less-marks in written test. (e) In a number of cases it has been noted that marks once allotted in the shorthand transcription sheets have been over-written/defaced and new marks allotted, obstensibly to favour the candidates of evaluator's choice. This has allowed the selection authority undue flexibility in the final allocation of marks of a candidate though he might have secured less-marks in written test. (e) In a number of cases it has been noted that marks once allotted in the shorthand transcription sheets have been over-written/defaced and new marks allotted, obstensibly to favour the candidates of evaluator's choice. (f) It has been noted in some cases, that though the shorthand dictation scripts do not contain pertain materials of dictated passage, the type transcription sheets contain the material of the dictated passage and in a better way. This indicates adoption of .malpractice in conducting the shorthand test. (g) On a visual checking, it has been noted that in certain answer scripts (Transcription sheet) containing poor performance, higher marks have been allotted b in comparison to that containing better performance. The above irregularities in the selection are only illustrative and not exhaustive. In any case, with be, above irregularities detected in the selection, the respondents were left with no .other option than to cancel the entire selection. By doing-so, no irregularity has been committed by the respondents rather the same as been done in the larger public interest which has also brought confidence among the public. The irregularities were detected upon an enquiry conducted by the Vigilance Deptt. on the Railway and in consideration of such enquiry, the selection in question has been cancelled and the applicant should not make any grievance against the same.” 6. Certain records of the selection were produced before us and we have perused the papers. The report of the investigation was also made available d I before us. Without considering the further allegations the entire selection process can be termed as highly unfair, defective and not in accordance with law. Under the Railway Rules of Recruitment only 15% of the totality of the marks meant for the written test can be allotted for the viva voce test. The law regarding allotment of marks for viva-voce test is more or less well settled in view of a catena of decisions of the Apex Court. In the instant case, from the record, we e find that 200 marks ^ere allotted for written test and 90 marks were allotted for viva-voce test and further 300 marks were allotted for speed test. In the instant case, from the record, we e find that 200 marks ^ere allotted for written test and 90 marks were allotted for viva-voce test and further 300 marks were allotted for speed test. The allotment of 90 marks for viva-voce test is in contravention of the recruitment rules of the Railways and also the law laid down by the Apex Court. A glance in the statement showing the marks obtained by all the 47 candidates who appeared in the viva-voce test shows that most of the candidates who were selected received less marks in the written examination and got comparatively higher marks in viva-voce test and also in the speed test. Candidates who had obtained 156 or 154 marks out of 200 in the written test were not selected whereas candidates who had obtained 96 marks, 110 marks, 120 marks have been selected. The allotment of 90 marks for viva-voce test gave scope for maneuvering the result. Another major defect for the purpose is that admittedly the viva voce test was conducted by a three member committee including Mr. I. Hansdak, Member Secretary RRB. The report of the investigation shows that two other members of the Board did prepare their chart of viva voce test. But surprisingly these charts were not available and the statement by which the panel was approved is signed by only one member, that is, Member Secretary, RRB. It does not contain or bear the signature of other two members. This gives a solid impression that the entire selection process was masterminded and managed by only one member of the three member Selection Board. By going through the records we have no hesitation whatsoever to hold that the entire selection process was vitiated and one can smell a rat. 7. Now the next question for consideration is that when the select list is found to be dubious and when the cancellation was bona fide and for valid reasons, whether the selectees are entitled to a hearing before the said cancellation. The learned Tribunal held that the selected were in fact entitled to a pre-decisional hearing and the failure of the Administration to afford such opportunity amounts to arbitrary and illegal action. The learned Tribunal held that the selected were in fact entitled to a pre-decisional hearing and the failure of the Administration to afford such opportunity amounts to arbitrary and illegal action. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the action of the Railway authorities was just, fair and in the public interest and there is no violation of the principles of natural justice. The learned counsel has referred to the decision of the Apex Court in Dilbagh Singh (supra) wherein it was held that if the cancellation of the select list is for bona fide and not arbitrary the selected candidates can not claim to have a right to be heard before such cancellation. In the case of Union of India & others vs. Anand Kumar Pande & others, (1994) 5 SCC 663 , the Apex Court considered the scope of the applicability of the Rules of natural justice in such cases and held in the facts of the case that it was not safe to make appointment based on the written examination wherein unfair means were adopted in a large scale. In the present case the Railway authorities have rightly refused to make appointments on the basis of unfair selection process and the 'cancellation of the said select list needs no interference. The selected were not entitled to any pre-decisional hearing and the order of cancellation was not at all arbitrary. 8. In view of the above, the writ petitions are allowed. The impugned order is set aside and there will be no order as to costs. Considering the fact that these vacancies are lying unfilled for long time, the Railway authorities are directed to step up the process of selection. It is needless to mention that the respondents shall be eligible to participate in the selection and in case of any bar regarding age, the same shall be relaxed considering the fact that the respondents were pursuing their relief in the Court of law.