A. K. YOG, J. Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel Shri S. C. Verma and perused the record. 2. Para 12 of the affidavit sworn by Vikas Chaturvedi (Petitioner No. 11) on his behalf as well as on behalf of other Petitioner in support of Application No. 32125 of 2001, praying for ad interim direction to the respondents to issue appointment letters, says that a learned Single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5342 of 1999 (S/s), V. K. Mishra v. State, on July 14, 2000 passed an order wherein learned Single Judge took note of the fact that delinquent officer, who was charged of perpetuating irregularities in the selection process having been exonerated there was no occasion for withholding appointment letter to successful candidates. Further, vide order dated 20th April, 2000 passed by learned Single Judge on the Order-sheet, in the instant case, direction was given that since Commissioner reported that there was no fault in selection, the requisite parties were required to send the Petitioner for training in case they were declared successful. The said order, however, provided that the training was subject to result of the Writ Petition. 3. On 22nd May, 2001 the Court directed other petitions of similarly nature also to be listed/placed before the Bench on 25th May, 2001. Learned Standing Counsel was required to obtain instructions. 4. Learned Counsels representing in connected Petitions are also present. 5. Shri S. C. Verma, learned Standing Counsel has placed copy of the letter dated 23rd May, 2001 written by District Development Officer, Moradabad to the said Standing Counsel referring to letter dated 23rd May, 2001, whereby the said authority had sent proposal to the Commissioner, Rural Development, U. P. Lucknow. The said letter No. 365 dated 23rd May, 2001 addressed to the Commissioner, Rural Development, U. P. Lucknow shows that in pursuance to the High Courts order dated April 20, 2000 passed in Writ Petition No. 37693 of 1999, Pradeep Kumar Singh and others v. State of U. P. and others, some correspondence was initiated including latter dated 9th November, 2000. From the above letter it is evident that eligible candidates, who had successfully completed training, are being given appointment according to the roster relating to reservation of different categories. 6. Relevant Rules governing training shows that some stipend is also to be paid to the trainee candidate. 7. From the above letter it is evident that eligible candidates, who had successfully completed training, are being given appointment according to the roster relating to reservation of different categories. 6. Relevant Rules governing training shows that some stipend is also to be paid to the trainee candidate. 7. Considering the fact that Petitioners were declared successful and charges of irregularity in the selection process not having been proved and even the officers against whom disciplinary action was taken, has been exonerated with warning only without finding or proof of charge vitiating selection as such. This Court has, no doubt, that cancellation of such selection cannot be justified. Some of the selected candidates even pursued training under ad interim order of the Court. In this view of the matter, such candidates, who have completed training, ought to be considered for appointment subject to availability of post and relevant roster. Such candidate should not be deprived of the consequential benefits, particularly they have been given training at the cost of State exchequer and no adverse material has been brought to the notice of the Court disentitling them from giving appointment. 8. In view of the fact that this Court has already come to the conclusion that selection process did not get vitiate because of the complaint/charge being levelled against an officer (Bharat Yadav in one of the cases listed before the Court) and the candidates were allowed by the Court to undertake training, it will not be fair for any candidate, who was declared successful in the said examination, on being deprived of the opportunity of being sent to training and consequential appointment subject to observance of other statutory rules, availability of post and adherence to roster under reservation scheme. Petition deserve to be allowed. 9. In view of the above, these petitions are allowed subject to the directions and observations made above. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. 10. It is clarified that all successful candidates in the examination in question shall be provided opportunity subject to availability of the post, which may be determined by the authorities, while sending candidates for training. Petition allowed. .