N. K. MITRA, C. J. These are the six Special Appeals arising out of the judgment and order dated April 8, 1997 whereby the learned Single Judge allowed Writ Petition No. 39772 of 1996 and five other connected writ petitions quashed the other dated 21 -10-1996 and advertise ment dated 25-10-1996 impugned in the writ petitions and directed the appellants herein to declare the result of the selection held for recruitment of Constables in Rail way Protection Force over Eastern Rail way pursuant to advertisement No. SC- 30/65/5-E (Rect.)-1995 dated 23-4-1995 within a period of two months from the date of judgment. 2. By impugned order dated 21-10-1996 impugned in the writ petitions the Chief Security Commissioner, Railway-Protection Force, Eastern Railway, Cal cutta had cancelled the selections process held in pursuant to advertisement dated 23-11-1995. The impugned advertisement was issued on 25-10-1996 for holding recruitment afresh. The order dated 21-10-1996 and advertisement dated 26-10-1995 were sought to be quashed, inter alia on the grounds that the process of selec tion was cancelled on extraneous con siderations and in colourable exercise of power. The order of cancellation, it was submitted by the petitioners, was passed without holding any enquiry whatsoever to ascertain to the truth of the allegations made in the complaint and sans material to substantiate the alleged complaints regarding the selection being vitiated on the grounds of corruption and nepotism. As regards the consequential advertise ment dated 26-10-1996 it was submitted on behalf of the writ petitioners before the learned Single Judge that stat-wise reser vations made therein and the require ments mentioned therein that the can didates must have passed their matricula tion from the three States, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and West Bengal and that they must also be domicile of these States were volatile of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitu tion of India. The earlier advertisement it was submitted by the writ petitioners did not limit the filed of eligibility to the above three States. Though several points were urged before the learned Single Judge but the writ petitions came to be allowed only on the ground that the order of cancella tion dated 26-10-1996 was passed without any basis in that there was no iota of evidence on record to show that the com petent authority had ever investigated the truth of the complaints made against the recruitment process. 3. 3. We have heard Shri U. N. Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for the appel lants and Shri VB. Singh learned Counsel representing the respondents. We have also perused the affidavits filed in the writ petition as well as original record produced by Shri U. N. Sharma. 4. Shri U. N. Sharma submitted that the Director General, Railway Protection Force, Railway Board, New Delhi was satisfied on the basis of personal enquires from various sources that the selection was not fair and was rather vitiated due to serious irregularities and malpractices, and the learned Single Judge erred in in terfering with the subjective opinion so formed by the Director General, Railway Protection Force, New Delhi. Sri VB. Singh submitted in support of the judgment under challenge that there was no material on record to enable the Director General to form an opinion on that malpractice or cor rupt means were adopted at the written test or at any stage of the selection process and the opinion formed by the Director General was unsustainable. 5. A perusal of the original record produced by Shri U. N. Sharma during the course of hearing would show that the main allegations made in the complaints including the complaint contained in let ter dated 1-3-1996 of one Shri Syed Mat-loonb Hashmi, Member, ZRUCC, East ern Railway addressed to the Prime Mini ster of India and Railway Minister are four folds :- (A) Collection of money ranging from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 70,000 from can didates through RPF personnel allegedly working as brokers and sub- brokers with the consent of the Chairman/members of the Recruitment Committee, on behalf of the then Chief Security Commissioner, Eastern Railway with an assurance to decure them job. (B) distribution of similar ball pens amongst all such can didates who had paid money and appeared in the written test at Dhanbad (Bihar) with instructions not to answer objective type question so as to enable the examiner to answer these objective questions by making appropriate tick mark afterwards; (C) some candidates who were to appear in the test at Lilaugh Centre were declared unfit due to their failure to pay the requisi te amount ; and (D) extra facilities privileges were given to the candidates belonging to the community of Chief Security Commissioner as per the instruc tions of the letter. 6. 6. The record further reveals, vide office note, dated 8-2-1995 as made on Security (E) File No. 93-Sec. (E)/ac-3/56/er, the S/sri Ratan Roy, Hemant Mandal, Prasante Halder, Sanu Sen and Sures Pal had complained to the President of India that the recruitment committee headed by Shri P. S. Rawal constituted for recruitment of Constables, Railway Protection Force for Eastern Railway was adopting illegal procedure for rejecting the genuine candidates and the candidates were being charged Rs. 35,000 to 50,0000 for recruitment. The note also refers to the complaint of Shri A. K. Seth of Hirapur, Dhanbad that the recruitment committee had engaged touts to collect Rs. 50,000 to 60,000 per candidate for recruitment and it was in this perspective that the Inspector General/hqr had remarked that "we may ask comments of CSS/e. Rly with an advise to check any malpractice during Recruit ment" and the complaints were according ly sent to Chief Security Commissioner, Eastern Railway for this comments. All the complaint, it appears, were submitted to the Director General with a suggestion "to refer the case to Advisor (Vig.) for the depth enquiry and to unearth truth. " 7. Thereafter Shri R. K. Sharma the then Director General passed a detailed order, the relevant portion of which reads as under: "a perusal on these complaints indicates that some of the complaints are anonymous/ pseudonymous and make general allegations. One specific point which has come in more than one complaint was use of pens with earmarked colour. This could be secretly verified by vigilance after going through answer sheets of candidates at random. The vigilance officer con ducting enquiry could also get in touch with all the complaints to find out whether any of the complaints are pseudonymous and look into the specific facts which could be verified and com plete the enquiry within a specific time frame say in a month or so and put up the report through Advisor (Vig. ). In the meantime we may not approve the proceedings of the recruitment committee. The proceedings with all the relevant papers may be kept in the office or DG/rpf and shown to officer earmarked by Adv. (Vig.) for security if and when required during the enquiry. ). In the meantime we may not approve the proceedings of the recruitment committee. The proceedings with all the relevant papers may be kept in the office or DG/rpf and shown to officer earmarked by Adv. (Vig.) for security if and when required during the enquiry. Since the career of a large number of can didates who have had this examination is at take there is a need for early enquiry and report by vigilance in these complaints so that a final decision on the result could be taken at an early date. If approved Adv. (Vig.) may be requested to get the enquiry completed within a month. For approval and orders please" On the basis of the aforesaid order made by the Director General, RPF the matter was considered by Shri A. S. Khan DV (P) who submitted a note date 23-5-1995 to Adv. (Vig) as under: "d. G. /rpf vide his note above has asked the Vigilance Directorate to enquire into com plaints relating to the recruitment of RPF con stables on the Eastern Railway. Complaints in this regard may be seen at SN 14,15,20,21 and 22. Besides these there is another compliant at SN 24 against Shri T. A. Khan, CSC, Eastern Railway which has also been marked to us for enquiry. In this regard it may be mentioned that the matter was informally discussed with the then acting DG/rpf (Shri R. K. Sharma, IGP) on 10-4-96. During discussion it transpired that the matter with regard to the recruitment of Con stables was already under enquiry by the Zonal Vigilance and under these circumstances it would be a duplication of effort making similar enquires through the Board Vigilance. The then DGAPF had spoken to the Chief Vigilance Officer, Eastern Railway, Shri Narthasarathy and I had also met the officer on his visit to Delhi last month. On both the occasions, CVO/er had confirmed that a vigilance enquiry was un derway. In respect of the complaint mentioned at Para 7 of DG/rpfs note on pre-page (SN 24) the concerned officer namely, Inspector M. M. Lall of Narkul Danga was summoned on 12-4-96 in the office of the undersigned for recording his statement with reference to the said com plaint. However on seeking the complaint at Sn 24, he disowned the same stating that he never made any such compliant nor he has any knowledge whatsoever in this regard. However on seeking the complaint at Sn 24, he disowned the same stating that he never made any such compliant nor he has any knowledge whatsoever in this regard. His state ment may kindly be seen at SN 26 placed below. Meanwhile, another complainant Shri Syed Masood Hashmi (SN 20) had also come to my office and desired to give in writing that he wanted to withdraw his complaint a request which I did not entertain. Further with regard to the allegations con tained in the note of DG/rpf at para 5 at page 21/n, regarding the use of ball, pens with ear marked colour, this aspect was discussed with him at length. This allegation happens to be common to all the complaints listed in para 1 above. The possibility of verifying and arriving at any definite conclusion with regard to the use of these ball pens seems very remote and the then DG/rpf was apprised that nothing substantial would come out of this as there would be no evidence to corroborate the allegations made in the complaint, a point to which he also agreed. In the light of what has been mentioned above, Adv. Vig. may kindly see for favour of kind information. " The note aforesaid was perused by the Adv. Vig. and the cause file was "sent back to DG/rpf as desired by him". Shri Joginder Singh who had in the meantime taken over as Director General RPF on perusal of the entire recruitment file along with the complete broad sheet and per sonal list of selected candidates sent to him for approval is said to have observed as under: "there can no smoke without firm. With the kid of allegations which had been made I cannot allow the name of RPF to be sullied and reduced to mud. I am satisfied that the recruit ment done has not been transparent. Anybody who pays money to get a job will sure try to realise his original investment. It is totally unac ceptable in the case of RPF who are supposed to guard the Railway and public properties worth crores. Hence I order that recruitment does in question hereby cancelled. " 8. Consequently, in view of the numerous complaints making serious al legations of malpractices the recruitment proceedings were scrapped by the Direc tor General, RPF vide order dated 21-5-1995. Hence I order that recruitment does in question hereby cancelled. " 8. Consequently, in view of the numerous complaints making serious al legations of malpractices the recruitment proceedings were scrapped by the Direc tor General, RPF vide order dated 21-5-1995. The decision to scrape the recruit ment was communicated to Chief Security Commissioner , RPF, Eastern Railway, Calcutta vide communication dated 21-5-1995 which reads as under: "the selection proceedings of con-stables/rpf of Eastern Railway, conducted by the Recruitment Committee consisting of Sh. B. S. Rawal, Sh. A. K. Singh and Sh. S. A. Shah has been examined by DG/rpf. A large number of complaints have been received in this office alleging malpractices in the recruitment process. After taking into account the allegations of malpractices in the recruitment process, DG/rpf has ordered thai the recruitment proceedings referred to above is scrapped. In structions for fresh recruitment will follow. " 9. The original record produced before us contains a post decisional report dated 3-12-1998 of Chief Security Com missioner, RPF, Eastern Railway goes to show investigation is underway in respect of "the assets of the suspicious officers" since very large amount is alleged to have passed hands. The report further reveals as under: "confidential enquiry was conducted and it was almost an open secret that the distribu tion of pens was actually done by certain officers close to the recruitment committee who has collected money on behalf of the Recruitment Committee. " 10. The enquiry committee appears to have come to the conclusion that the candidates who had made prior payment were given one pen and were asked to answer the essay question in that ink and keep the objective type question totally blank so that examiner would fill it in the same ink later on at the time of evaluation of answer sheets. The enquiry committee had probed the answer sheets of certain candidates such as Virendra Singh (Roll No. 55512), Sanjeev Kumar (Roll No. 59713), Devi Shankar Yadav (Roll No. 1616), Shambhu Sharan Chauhan (Roll No. 3309), Manoj Kumar Dubey (Roll No. 11674), Vinod Kumar Singh (Roll No. 19714), Shyam Kumar Tewari (Roll No. 59421) and Uma Shankar Dubey (Roll No. 49544) and found that they have been awarded high marks looking to the stand ard their cases and further that they have been of awarded marks ranging from 85% to 100% in objective portion of the ques tion paper. The committee, therefore, concluded as under: "it is pertinent to mention that all these above candidates have moved the Honble Court for declaration of their results as they seemed absolutely sure of making the grade. The security of their result sheets as well as naked-eye perusal of the links used and the uniform style of ticking of (/) very clearly point out that the allegations have substance. Scrutiny of the examination of records of the other suspected candidates also raises doubts about the fare (/) procedure having been adopted (list attached ). All these answer sheets need to be sent for further examination to Examiner of questioned documents at Simla to verify (I) whether the same type of pens were used in all these papers (ii) whether the ticking of (/) was done by the same person on all the answer scripts. " And further; "since very large amount of money is al leged to have changed hands, assets of the suspi cious officers have to be investigated. On en quiries conducted by the IVG Cell, Eastern Railway so far it is transparent that the selection was not fair and malpractices were resorted to for full proof, a clear case for CBI enquiry is made out. " 11. The learned Single Judge on con sideration of the material on record has held that: "in the instant case there is no finding recorded by any authority whatsoever so to whether there was any irregularity in the selec tion or money had really changed the hands. It is based only on the complaints and the alleged subjective satisfaction of the superior authority is based on no evidence. Apart from that not a single instance or circumstance has been brought to the notice of this Court from which even indirectly malpractice or corrupt practice in the examination or selection can be gathered. " And further that; "the record further reveals that there had been only eleven complaints and most of them had been from State of Bihar which is a major beneficiary of new advertisement. There is no iota of evidence on record that any competent authority had investigated the said complaints. " And further that; "the record further reveals that there had been only eleven complaints and most of them had been from State of Bihar which is a major beneficiary of new advertisement. There is no iota of evidence on record that any competent authority had investigated the said complaints. The competent authority had acted on its wis dom but the material on which such authority had acted upon has not been disclosed before the Court" And further more that; "therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 21-10-1995 can celling the selection process suffers from the vice of arbitrariness and must be declared illegal and mala fide. As the petitions succeed only why on these grounds the other issues to not require con sideration. " (Emphasis supplied ). 12. The crucial questions that arise for consideration are : (i) Whether the order cancelling the selection process suf fered from the vice of arbitrariness and mala fide as held by the learned Single Judge? ; and (ii) whether the Director General, RPF was justified in scrapping the recruitment process without objec tively ascertaining the truth or otherwise of the complaints received at Head quarters from various sources? It cannot be gainsaid that the Director General, RPF being the approving authority would be deemed to be possessed of the discre tion to scrap the recruitment if he believes in good faith that the process of recruit ment is tainted by malpractices of bribery, nepotism and favouritism etc. 13. In matters like the one before us an non est exercise of power is to be sus tained unless it is found to be grossly un reasonable. Exercise of power in a matter of this nature when challenged should be tested more on the touch stone of good faith than reasonablness. There is a sub tle distinction between good faith and reasonablness. It would be apt to quote de Smiths Judicial Review of Administra tive Action by Evans (4th Edition) page 347 as under to bring home the point: "a duty to act in good faith (which is un doubtedly a general principle of administrative law) is distinguishable from a duty to act reasonably. As Scrutton LJ observed, "some of the more honest people are the most un reasonable ; and some excesses may be sincerely believed in but yet quote beyond the limits of reasonableness. As Scrutton LJ observed, "some of the more honest people are the most un reasonable ; and some excesses may be sincerely believed in but yet quote beyond the limits of reasonableness. But conduct that is so un reasonable as to be arbitrary or capricious can well be mistaken for or assimilated to acts done in bad faith. " 14. In this context the following ob servation made by Lord Hailsman LC in Re W, (an Infant) (1971) AC 682, 700 as well will illuminate the problem: "not every reasonable exercise of judg ment is right and not every mistaken exercise of judgment is unreasonable. There is a band of decisions with in which no Court should seek to replace the individuals judgment with (its) own. " 15. The discretion is however not ab solute. If it is found to have been exercised mala fide or in bad faith it would be hit by doctrine of ultra vires in that bad faith is often referred to as a ground of invalidity sui generis. The concept of bad faith has been explained by de Smiths Judicial Review of Administrative actions by Evans Fourth Edn. Page 335-36 as under: "the concept of bad faith eludes precise definition but in relation to the exercise of statutory powers it may be said to comprise dishonesty (or fraud) and malice. A power is exercised fraudulently if its repository tends to achieve an object other than that for which he believes the power to have been conferred. . . . . . A power is exercised maliciously if its repository is motivated by personal animosity towards those who are directly affected by its exercise. " "a Court will, however not in general un certain allegations of bad faith made against the repository of a poor unless bad faith has been expressly pleaded and properly particularised. " - (See de Smith (supra) page 333 ). 16. In a matter like the one on hand, the competent authority, in our opinion, does not decide a Us between the com plaint on one hand and candidates seek ing appointment on the other so as to be obliged to hold an enquiry in consonance with the rules of natural justice. 16. In a matter like the one on hand, the competent authority, in our opinion, does not decide a Us between the com plaint on one hand and candidates seek ing appointment on the other so as to be obliged to hold an enquiry in consonance with the rules of natural justice. It is decision is not to be judged from judicial or even quasi-judicial standards and since exercise of power to scrap recruitment is not regulated by objectively determinable factors even "reasonable suspicion" as to the process of recruitment being vitiated by malpractices or corrupt means would suffice. Surrounding circumstances e. g. the necessity to scrap the recruitment for preservation of public faith in the recruit ment process will also do. The competent authority, in our opinion is not required to hold a formal enquiry in tune with the principles of natural justice and ascertain the truth or otherwise of the complaints as to malpractice in the recruitment process as condition precedent to cancelling the recruitment process. All that is expected of the competent authority in such a situa tion is that it would act in good faith and take a bonafide decision whether to scrap or not to scrap the recruitment. The decision should not be influenced by any extraneous consideration and whenever its decision is bound to have been in fluenced by bad faith or extraneous con sideration the Court will intervene for no power is absolute and rather all powers are conferred subject to an implied duty that they be exercised reasonably and in good faith. An authority failing to comply with this obligation, it may be observed, acts unlawfully or ultra vires. The judicial scrutiny by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on a Mat ter like the one on hand is to be made on the anvil of good faith, bona fide and absence of mala fide. The impugned decision to scrap the recruitment in our opinion does not appear to be tainted with mala fide, bad faith or extraneous consideration. Nothings on the original file produced before us would show that the matter was examined and decision to scrap the recruitment was taken after due deliberation. The impugned decision to scrap the recruitment in our opinion does not appear to be tainted with mala fide, bad faith or extraneous consideration. Nothings on the original file produced before us would show that the matter was examined and decision to scrap the recruitment was taken after due deliberation. Such decision in our opinion is not open to challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the ground that there was no material to substantiate the allegations of mal practice. The com plaints in themselves constituted valid material on consideration of which the recruitment could lawfully be scrapped. The Director General, RPF in our opinion was right in observing that anybody who pays money to get a job would first realise his original investment. Members of the RPF who are supposed to guard the rail way and public property worth crores of rupees should not be allowed to enter into the (sic) by illegal and corrupt means. The view taken by the learned Single Judge that the decision to scarp the recruitment was arbitrary cannot be sustained. The report dated 3-12-1998 submitted by the Chief Security Commissioner RPF, East ern Railway is no doubt a post decisionai report but since its supports the com plaints to a large extent the decision to scrap the recruitment as taken by the Director General, RPF cannot be said to be vitiated by arbitrariness particularly when the exercise of discretion in this regard is not regulated by objectively determinable factors/norms. Learned Single Judge in our opinion was not right in judging the impugned decision on the touchstone of the standards meant for judging judicial or quasi-judicial decision affecting vested rights of individual. In the instant case examines acquired no in-defensibly right to get the result of ex amination declared and therefore, if the Director General, RPF on consideration of the complaints decided to scrap the recruitment no exception can be taken to such decision. The judgment under chal lenge is therefore, unsustainable. 17. In the result, therefore, the ap peals succeed and are allowed. The judg ment of the learned Single Judge is set aside. The judgment under chal lenge is therefore, unsustainable. 17. In the result, therefore, the ap peals succeed and are allowed. The judg ment of the learned Single Judge is set aside. The impugned advertisement is however quashed and appellants are directed to issue fresh advertisement in such a way that the applicants who had applied pursuant to the earlier advertisement are not disqualified on the ground of age-bar or on any other disqualification not comprehended in the original adver tisement. Appeal allowed. .