Judgment :- PASAYAT, C. J. Orders of termination passed by the respondents were challenged by the present appellants in O. P. No. 18677/96 which was dismissed. The same is the subject matter of challenge in this Writ Appeal. Factual position necessary for adjudication of the controversy raised in this appeal is as follows : Appellants were appointed as Lower Division Clerks/Accountants in the Kerala State Co-operative Employees Pension Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board'). The orders of appointment were issued on 3-6-1996 and they joined on the same day. Subsequently, the Board passed a resolution on 4-10-1996 to the effect that there was large scale malpractices and manipulations in the process of selection, the appointments were irregular and illegal, and were to be cancelled. The Secretary of the Board was authorised to call for the explanation of the appellants as to why their appointments should not be cancelled. Show cause notice in each case was, accordingly, issued. On receipt of the show cause notice, appellants submitted a petition praying for supply of the documents relied on in the show cause notice, or in the alternative to permit them to peruse the records. O. P. No. 16108/96 was filed by the appellants challenging the show cause notice. Basis of the challenge was that a reading of the show cause notice indicated that Board had already taken a decision to terminate their services without hearing them and no useful purpose will be served by calling for the explanations. By judgment dated 6-11-1996, this Court directed the respondents to treat the averments and allegations contained in the show cause notice as prima facie conclusions arrived at for the purpose of issuing show cause notice and the appellants were given opportunity to file their explanations within ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. A further direction was given to the respondents to consider the explanations which were to be filed by the appellants before passing final orders. Explanations were accordingly filed on 16-11-1996 and on consideration thereof final order of termination in this case was passed on 22-11-1996. Before the learned single Judge it was submitted that the orders terminating the services of the appellants had no validity as the principles of natural justice were not followed. They were not served with copies of the documents which they wanted to peruse before submitting their explanation. Before the learned single Judge it was submitted that the orders terminating the services of the appellants had no validity as the principles of natural justice were not followed. They were not served with copies of the documents which they wanted to peruse before submitting their explanation. Though some of the documents were made available, all the documents were not furnished and, therefore, they were prejudiced. It was also submitted that copy of the report of the Sub-committee which was relied upon by the Board to terminate the services of the appellants was not served on them. It is their specific stand that they had a right to know the contents of the report. Further stand was that the Board has no power to review its earlier decision by which the appellants were appointed and even if there was irregularity committed by the Board in the matter of appointment, the appellants should not be penalised for such irregularities. Learned single Judge found that the Board has considered the explanations submitted by the appellants and the conclusions arrived at were after verification of the records including the minutes book, mark list and other connected papers.Learned counsel for the appellants reiterated their stand before learned single Judge before us. Learned counsel for the respondents produced the entire records for Our perusal, pursuant to our direction in addition to the submission that fraud, manipulation of records and irregularities are so visible that action taken was unavoidable. The Board was constituted as per Notification dated 14-3-1995. As per paragraph 10 of the Scheme prescribed, there is a requirement to frame regulations containing qualification and method of appointment and other conditions of service of the officers of the Board with the prior approval of the Government. No regulation has been framed. By G. O. (MS) No. 176/95 dated 19-12-1995 Government had accorded sanction for the staff pattern proposed by the Board. But appointments were made without framing rules and regulations as required under paragraph 10(2) of the Scheme. By resolution dated 18-1-1996; the Board had decided to conduct written test and interview for the post of Lower Division Clerks/Accountants. 100 marks were allotted for written test and 20 marks for interview. But appointments were made without framing rules and regulations as required under paragraph 10(2) of the Scheme. By resolution dated 18-1-1996; the Board had decided to conduct written test and interview for the post of Lower Division Clerks/Accountants. 100 marks were allotted for written test and 20 marks for interview. A Sub-committee was constituted for conducting the written test which as per its resolution No. 5 appointed Shri E. K. Moideen, a retired joint Registrar from Malappuram to conduct the written test for the post of Clerks on 25-2-1996. Board, as per its resolution dated 6-3-1996, decided to conduct the interview of candidates who had secured more than 40 marks in the written test and authorised the Sub-Committee to conduct the interview. The Sub-committee, which conducted the interview, prepared a select list of 45 candidates and the same was placed before the Board. The Board on 2-5-1996 decided to appoint 14 Lower Division Clerks/Accountants and accordingly appointment orders were issued by the Secretary on 3-5-1996 to the appellants. The candidates were identified by the then Chairman of the Board indicating in the appointment order "Persons identified - issued by hand - 3-5-96". The appointment orders were delivered in person. The then Chairman remitted the office in June, 1996 and the new Board assumed charge on 25-6-96. As complaints were received regarding irregularities in the selection and appointment of Lower Division Clerks/Accountants, they were considered by the Board. The minutes of the meeting held on 2-5-1996, mark lists of the written test and interview, minutes of the appointment committee, Notes of the Secretary and report of the appointment committee dated 16-7-1996 were perused by the Board which came to the conclusion that there were irregularities in the selection and appointment and that manipulations were made in the mark list. Two sets of mark lists were found to be in existence. Candidates who had secured the highest marks in the written test were by-passed in the process of selection. Under the circumstances, the Committee resolved to cancel the selection after calling for the explanation of the appellants.The reasons for cancellation of appointment of the appellants and termination of their services have been indicated in the impugned order Ext. P10 in detail. Candidates who had secured the highest marks in the written test were by-passed in the process of selection. Under the circumstances, the Committee resolved to cancel the selection after calling for the explanation of the appellants.The reasons for cancellation of appointment of the appellants and termination of their services have been indicated in the impugned order Ext. P10 in detail. It is clear therefrom that in the two mark lists pertaining to the selection to the post of Lower Division Clerks/Accountants, it is discernible that six persons who were selected in the category of L. D. Clerks/Accountants had got lesser marks in the written test. These six persons thus selected were given 19 marks in the interview out of 20 and their original marks in the original mark list is far lesser than the marks given in the second mark list. A comparison has been shown as follows : (See Table on next page) It was found that the abovementioned candidates were awarded 10, 15, 11, 44, 36 and 40 more marks. At the same time there were 7 candidates who got more than 78 marks in the first mark list produced by the then Chairman. The intention of the then Chairman was to put the appellants at the top six places in the rank list. But for the irregularities in the mark list produced on 31-5-1996, the candidates who got higher marks in the mark list dated 23-2-1996 would have been selected and appointed. The answer papers in respect of the written test were not available in the office. The Examiner stated that he had handed over the same to the then Chairman and received his acknowledgment. Though a note was made in the file by the then Chairman on 23-3-1996 about handing over the mark list to the Secretary, there was nothing mentioned about the answer paper. The select list prepared by the Board on 2-5-1996 was not published in the notice board. The then Chairman handed over the appointment order stating "person identified - issued by hand". This was considered to be an act of over enthusiasm by the then Chairman. The records of selection were handed over to the Board office only on 31-5-1996. The then Chairman had visited the Examiner on six occasions between 9-3-1996 to 22-3-1996 at a place called Moorkanad, Malappuram, the resident of the Examiner. This was considered to be an act of over enthusiasm by the then Chairman. The records of selection were handed over to the Board office only on 31-5-1996. The then Chairman had visited the Examiner on six occasions between 9-3-1996 to 22-3-1996 at a place called Moorkanad, Malappuram, the resident of the Examiner. The tour diary of the then Chairman disclosed these facts.Both mark lists handed over by the Chairman to the Board contain the signatures of the Examiner and the then Chairman and the handwritings are similar. Taking note of these facts, learned single Judge has, in our opinion, rightly declined to interfere. It is to be noted that the Government had sanctioned six posts of L. D. Clerks/Accountants, but the Board prepared a select list of 45 candidates for appointment to the post of L. D. Clerks/Accountants and decided to appoint 14 persons to the said post. The number of vacancies were not specified in the advertisement issued in the local daily. The select list prepared on 2-6-1996 was scored off, and names of certain persons were interpolated. The notification inviting applications was published in a local daily which had got very limited circulation limiting the zone of consideration and preventing more eligible and intending candidates from applying ------------------------------------------------------------------------- S1. No. in Name Original Marks in Interview Total the Rank Marks 2nd list marks List. Marks list ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Sreejith, C. P. 78 88 19 107 2. Jayakumari, G. 72 87 19 106 3. Mohanakumar, C. S. 75 86 19 105 4. Sulekhakumari, N. 41 85 19 104 5. Harikumar, B. 48 84 19 103 6. Rajeevan, E. P. 43 83 19 102 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- for the post. It is interesting to note that the chairman had produced a full fledged mark sheet in respect of Clerks on 23-3-1996 duly signed by both the Chairman and the Examiner, which was later on removed by the then Chairman on 10-4-1996. The Secretary-in-charge kept photocopies of the original mark lists in the file with his attestation. It is not known as to why the then Chairman took away the original mark list from the custody of the Board and another consolidated mark list purported to have been signed on 22-3-1996 was substituted. The second mark list was entrusted on 31-5-1996, nearly a month after the selection.Though a stand was taken that the documents required were not supplied, it appears from Ext. The second mark list was entrusted on 31-5-1996, nearly a month after the selection.Though a stand was taken that the documents required were not supplied, it appears from Ext. P6 that except vaguely stating that the appellants wanted to peruse the various documents mentioned in Ext. P5, no details were indicated. In the counter-affidavit filed in O. P. No. 16108/96, most of the documents relied on in Ext. P5 were furnished to the appellants and some other documents were furnished to them along with ext. P8. It has been held by learned single Judge that when O. P. No. 16108/96 was disposed of, there was no plea advanced by the appellants that copies of the documents mentioned in Ext. P5 should be furnished to them. They had given up the case that they were entitled to peruse the copies of the documents relied on in Ext. P5 or that they should be furnished to them. They had given up the case that they were entitled to peruse the copies of the documents relied on in Ext. P5 or that they should be furnished to them. That being the position, there is no substance in the plea that before Ext. P10 order was passed, they were not given an opportunity to peruse the documents relied on in Ext. P5. It is necessary to deal with the residual point urged by the appellants regarding violation of principles of natural justice. As observed in Krishna Yadav v. State of Haryana, AIR 1994 SC 2166, persons who got selection to a post by illegal methods are liable to be sent out without following the principles of natural justice. Similar view was also taken in Union of India v. Anand Kumar Pandey, 1994 5 SCC 663 : (AIR 1995 SC 388). There is no substance in the plea taken by the appellant that they had no knowledge about the fraud and manipulations. Any direction to comply with the principles of natural justice in the sense to afford them a hearing will only be a futile exercise of power. Persons who got the orders of appointment by resort to backdoor methods should be sent out through backdoor itself. The entire selection is vitiated. When the selection has been made without interview, fake and ghost interviews, tampering with the final records, fabricating documents, forgery, an inference that all was motivated by extraneous considerations can be drawn. Persons who got the orders of appointment by resort to backdoor methods should be sent out through backdoor itself. The entire selection is vitiated. When the selection has been made without interview, fake and ghost interviews, tampering with the final records, fabricating documents, forgery, an inference that all was motivated by extraneous considerations can be drawn. The entire selection thus is arbitrary and is liable to be set aside. Similar plea has taken in Krishna Yadav's case (supra). The plea that innocent candidates should not be penalised for the misdeeds of others is not applicable to such cases. The effect of setting aside the selection would mean the selectees will have no right to go to the office. It is highly regrettable that the holders of public offices, both big and small, have forgotten that the offices entrusted to them are sacred trust. Such offices are meant for use and not abuse. When the entire selection is stinking, conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit, individual innocence has no place as fraud unravels everything.The records produced, on cursory glance, reveal large scale of malpractices and manipulations in the process of selection. No person can be permitted to take advantage of the illegality committed by him directly or indirectly. As the factual position amply reveals, appellants were also parties to the fraud and illegal process of selection, and they cannot have any advantage or benefit from such illegal activity. Writ Appeal is without any merit and is dismissed. Writ appeal dismissed.