N.S. SINGH, J.— In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners 71 in number have questioned the validity of the impugned order dated 21.7.2000 as in Annexure-VI to the writ petition by which the Departmental Examination for promotion of Assistant Sub-Inspectors of Police (for short, "ASI") in the rank of Sub-Inspector of Police (for short, "SI") held from 23rd to 25th February, 2000, has been declared null and void, and the results declared vide office order dated 2nd June, 2000, as in Annexure-IV and V to the writ petition, have been cancelled. 2. According to the petitioners, the Office of the Inspector General of Police vide memo dated 26.2.1999, as in Annexure-III to the writ petition, nominated 326 ASIs including the petitioners to appear in the Departmental Examination for promotion to the rank of SI, and the examination was held on 23rd & 24th February, 2000, in the premises of Shillong Law College where 326 candidates including the petitioner took the examination in presence of invigilators, and during the examination no complaint whatsoever from any quarter was lodged of any unfair means being adopted by the candidates. Apart from that the invigilators also had not reported about any unfair means being adopted, and the results of the examination are declared vide order/memo, dated 2.6.2000, as in Annexures-IV and V to the petition, but to a great punishment, the Director General of Police and the Inspector General of Police, Meghalaya, Shillong, declared the said Departmental Examination as null and void thus cancelling the results of the same under the impugned order dated 21.7.2000, mentioned above, without any justification. 3. Supporting the case of the petitioners, Mr S.R. Sen, learned senior counsel, contended that prior to cancellation of the results, the respondent-authorities did not issue any notice to the petitioners, neither any enquiry was made nor opportunity of showing cause or hearing was afforded to the petitioners, and, as such, the action of the State-respondents in cancelling the results is violative of the principles of natural justice. In support of his aforesaid submission, learned senior counsel, relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Suresh Koshy George-Vs-University of Kerala, AIR 1996 SC 198; Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P.-Vs-Kumari Chittra Srivastava, AIR 1970 SC 1039 ; Board of High School & Intermediate Education, U.P.-Vs-BagleshwarPrasad, AIR 1966 SC 875 , and yet another case between Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P. -Vs-Ghanshyam Das Gupta, AIR 1962 SC 1110 , and the decision of this Court rendered in Prafulla Chandra Das-Vs-State of Tripura, (1996) 2 GLT 171 / (1996) 3 GLR 141, and submitted that it is incumbent on the part of the authority concerned to issue show cause notice to the candidates and to the persons concerned before inflicting the penalty of cancellation and adequate opportunity to defend the person or persons against whom the action is to be taken, should be afforded before infliction of any penalty. According to Mr Sen, learned senior counsel, no opportunity of being heard or to have their say or a prior notice was given afforded to the present writ petitioners before the impugned order dated 21.7.2000 as in Annexure-VI to the writ petition was passed by the respondent-authority and, as such, the impugned order dated 21.7.2000 deserves to be quashed on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice. It is to be submitted that there is/ was no fair play on the part of the respondents/authority concerned while putting the impugned order by which the legitimate right of the writ petitioners for their promotion to the posts of SI has been deprive of. Mr Sen went on to contend that these petitioners later on came to know that an enquiry was initiated by the Inspector General of Police (CID), Meghalaya who submitted his report on 7.7.2000, and on the basis of the findings arrived at by the said Enquiry Officer, the results of the examination were cancelled though the petitioners were not given any opportunity of being heard or to have their say in the said enquiry. Apart from that the said enquiry was conducted behind the back of the petitioners, and that being the position, these writ petitioners have been condemned unheard. 4. The case of the writ petitioners was contested by the State-respondents by filing counter-affidavit. Apart from that the said enquiry was conducted behind the back of the petitioners, and that being the position, these writ petitioners have been condemned unheard. 4. The case of the writ petitioners was contested by the State-respondents by filing counter-affidavit. At the hearing, Mr V.K. Jindal, learned senior counsel, supporting the case of the State-respondents, contended that on receipt of the related complaint, the Government desired to collect more facts through an enquiry, and, accordingly, the Director General of Police, Meghalaya, was directed to cause an enquiry into the matter and to submit report to the Government within 30 days, and enquiry was conducted by the Director General of Police, Meghalaya through the Inspector General of Police (CID) and report was received by the Government on 1.9.2000 and the same was thoroughly examined, and on examination of the said enquiry report, the Government was satisfied that the Departmental Examination conducted by the Inspector General of Police (Training) was vitiated and that the situation could not be redeemed except through holding of a fresh Departmental Examination, and, accordingly, the Government vide letter No. HPL. 128/2000/117 dated 9.10.2000 directed the Director General of Police to conduct a fresh Departmental Examination within the period of one month taking necessary care and precaution to ensure that the Departmental Examination was fair and free from irregularities, and, as such, there was no malafide on the part of the Government and there was no infirmity and illegality in the order dated 21.7.2000. According to Mr Jindal, as there were several irregularities in the conduct of the Departmental Examination conducted by the Inspector General of Police (Training) which had been revealed through the enquiry as conducted by the Inspector General of Police (CID), the results of the said Departmental Examination were declared as null and void, and in such a situation no question of serving prior notice or show cause notice or giving opportunity of being heard or to have their say to the petitioners would arise. Mr Sen further submitted that in the instant case, the principles of natural justice cannot be invoked in view of the fact hat there was leakage of question papers, absence of 3 invigilators, subsequent increase of marks by the examiners, inclusion of marks of excess answers to the questions by the examiners, tampering the result-sheet, bribery, etc. Mr Sen further submitted that in the instant case, the principles of natural justice cannot be invoked in view of the fact hat there was leakage of question papers, absence of 3 invigilators, subsequent increase of marks by the examiners, inclusion of marks of excess answers to the questions by the examiners, tampering the result-sheet, bribery, etc. In view of the above position, the writ petitioners were not entitled to any hearing or notice as claimed. 5. Now this Court is to see and examine as to whether these petitioners have enforceable legal right in the instant case whether these petitioners were entitled to any prior notice or hearing as claimed by them before passing the impugned order or not. 6. Upon hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, and on perusal of the available materials on record, and after proper application of my mind in the instant case, I am of the view that these petitioners have no enforceable legal right and they were fare at all not entitled to any prior notice or hearing as claimed and apart from that no question of violation of the principles of natural justice would ever arise in the instant case for the following reasons: 7. On receipt of a complaint and considering prevailing situation and circumstances as per the related directive of the authority concerned, an enquiry was conducted by the Inspector General of Police (CID), Meghalaya. The State-respondents produced the records including the enquiry report conducted by one Sri A.K. Mathur, IPS, Inspector General of Police (CID), Meghalaya, in the matter relating to conduct of Departmental Examination for promotion of the ASIs to the rank of Sis held in the month of February, 2000. A copy of the said enquiry report produced by the State counsel has been made part of the record and marked 'X' for proper identification. This enquiry report is every much relevant for the purpose of this case and for better appreciation in the matter some of the related observations and findings of the Inspector General of Police (CID), Meghalaya which are relevant for just determination of real points in controversy between the parties are quoted below: "4. This enquiry report is every much relevant for the purpose of this case and for better appreciation in the matter some of the related observations and findings of the Inspector General of Police (CID), Meghalaya which are relevant for just determination of real points in controversy between the parties are quoted below: "4. During the course of enquiry I examined the following persons: (i) Shri B.R.Marak, ASI (ii) Smti M.V.Laloo, WPSI (iii) Smti Usha Sinha, WPASI (iv) Smti Silvia Momin, WPASI (v) Smti M.Nongrum, WPASI (vi) Smti P.Marwain WPASI (vii) Sri N.K.Sinha, ASI (viii) Smti. E.D.Sangma, ASI (ix) Smti. E. Khongatam, WPASI (x) Sri D. Swaraj, ASI It is mentioned that I had called Sri Sudeep Sangma, ASI and Sri P.C. Marak, ASI also but both did not appear before me for enquiry. 5. I also collected a copy of DO No. 2170 dt. 3.7.2000 issued by the SP East Khasi Hills in respect of DP against ASI KC Khyriem. 6.As regards the allegation that there was a departmental proceeding pending against ASI K.C. Khyriem, it is found that the DP was disposed of vide AIG(A) office No. MG/XI-12/99/105 dated 27.1.2000 with imposition of penalty of 3 (three) annual service increments with cumulative effect with effect from the next date of such increment. He scored following marks in all the four subjects: 1) Law with book -59/100 (He attemp­ted only 5 out of 6 required questions) 2) Law without book - 53'/2/100 3) Garo language - 25/50 (initially the examiner had awarded only 15 marks however it is found that marks were revised). 4) Hindi language - (It is as per the (oral) extract of the tabulation sheet only. The markssheet of the examiner is not made available). As such it is found that the DP against him had already been concluded and punishment was in force when he appeared in the Departmental Examination. He has been declared as 'passed' in the examination. As regards his promotion, a decision is to be taken by the Head Office in view of the outcome of the DP. 7. As regards the allegation that Smti Usha Sinha, ASI, was in possession of question papers before the Departmental Examination, no substantive evidence was found forthcoming. On being examined she totally denied the allegation. As regards his promotion, a decision is to be taken by the Head Office in view of the outcome of the DP. 7. As regards the allegation that Smti Usha Sinha, ASI, was in possession of question papers before the Departmental Examination, no substantive evidence was found forthcoming. On being examined she totally denied the allegation. Except Sri B.R. Mark, ASI who claimed to have come to know after the exams, through WPASI Smti S. Momin that Smti Usha Sinha, ASI had question papers before the examns., no one else who was examined during the enquiry deposed to support the allegation. On being asked even Smti S. Momin, WPASI also denied having any knowledge about leakage of papers to Smti Usha Sinha. As such this allegation is not found proved. Further, it is found that Smti Usha Sinha obtained very poor marks in the examination. This fact also suggests that she was perhaps not having any fore-knowledge of the question. The marks obtained by her in all the subjects are as follows: 1) Law with book - 19/100 Attempted 2) Law without - 40/100 all the required Book 6 questions in both the papers) 3) Khasi language - 26/50 (The examin­er had initia­lly awarded 20 marks, but the marks were revised) 4) Hindi language (Oral) 26/50 (This is as per the extract of the tabulation sheet. The marks sheet of the examiner is not made available) It is found that despite her poor performance in the examination her name appeared in the list of successful candidates. 8. As regards the allegation of demand of money by WPSI Smti M.V. Laloo to manage favourable result, Sri B.R. Marak and Shri N.K. Sinha asserted in their depositions that the demand of Rs.35,000/- each was made by Smti Laloo from them. Smti Laloo admitted that she had called Sri B.R. Marak to her residence. However, she claimed that she had called him only in connection with one case in which FR was submitted by the I/O in the Court of the CJM, Shillong and in pursuance of the orders of the CJM only she had called Sri B.R. Marak. On further questioning it was admitted by her that Sri B.R. Marak had taken only pre-steps in that case while he was posted at the Laitumkhrah PS. Later on Sri V. Khongshei had investigated the case and filed the FR. On further questioning it was admitted by her that Sri B.R. Marak had taken only pre-steps in that case while he was posted at the Laitumkhrah PS. Later on Sri V. Khongshei had investigated the case and filed the FR. As such Sri B.R. Marak had nothing to do with that case. It was found that admittedly on 9th April, 2000 Smti Laloo had made a call for Sri B.R. Marak to Laitumkhrah PS and when she learnt from there that he was transferred to Lumdiengiri PS, she made a call to Lumdeingiri PS also. One constable had received the call. Smti Laloo asked him to convey her message to Sri B.R. Marak that he should contact her over phone at her residence. 9th April, 2000 was Sunday. Further, while going out of her house for a short period, she had briefed her daughter that if Sri B.R. Marak makes a call, he should be asked to come to her house. Accordingly, on receipt of her message Sri B.R. Marak made a call and then visited her house. As per Sri Marak, Smti Laloo did discuss about the case but soon she changed the topic and told him that if he could arrange Rs.35,000/-, she could help him in getting promotion. As per Sri Marak, he refused to pay any amount for the purpose. During the examination, Smti Laloo tried to explain that she was quite friendly with Sri Marak and out of that friendship only she had called him to her residence. She however could not give a satisfactory explanation as to why he was not invited ever before during the last 10 years of their acquintance/friendship. Further, she also could not give any satisfactory explanation as to why Sri B.R. Marak was called for discussion in respect of the case about which he could not do anything. On being questioned, she admitted that while she made all efforts to contact and call Sri B.R. Marak to her residence, she did not make any effort to contact the I/O of the case who was the right person to be contacted, if there was any need, as per the purported directions of the CJM. During the examination, Smti Laloo initially denied having any discussion about the Departmental Examination with Sri B.R. Marak at her residence. She was confronted with Sri B.R. Marak also, but she still denied the fact. During the examination, Smti Laloo initially denied having any discussion about the Departmental Examination with Sri B.R. Marak at her residence. She was confronted with Sri B.R. Marak also, but she still denied the fact. However, on further questioning, she at last admitted that she did discussion about theexamination. However, she again denied the allegation of demand of money. Similarly, Smti Laloo denied making any demand to Sri N.K. Sinha, ASI. On being questioned Sri N.K. Sinha, deposed that once near Don Bosco School, when he happened to meet Smti Laloo, he had asked her as to when the results were expected. As per him, Smti. Laloo had asked him to make payment of Rs.35,000/- to her if he was to get promotion. On being questioned Sri N.K. Sinha, ASI could not give satisfactory explanation as to why he had asked her about the results when she was not officially or otherwise supposed to be any way related to the process of the examination. It appeared from his statement that he had learnt about the demand made by her from Sri B.R. Marak and he was also making an effort to come in contact with her to seek favour. He therefore started the topic by asking about the result but when she made demand, he could not pursue the matter further as he was perhaps not in a position to arrange such a huge amount. Smti Laloo denied meeting Sri N.K. Sinha, ASI, near the School and making any demand. She was confronted with Sri N.K. Sinha but she still did not admit the allegation. Smti Laloo also denied making demand to Smti S. Momin, WPASI. On being questioned Smti S. Momin also denied the allegation of demand and payment of any amount to Smti Laloo. It is mentioned here that while Sri B.R. Marak and Sri N.K. Sinha, ASI, have failed, Smti S. Momin has been declared passed in the exam. During the course of examination, Smti M. Nongrum, stated that WPASI Smti S. Momin, ASI had told her that Smti Laloo had made a demand of Rs.40,000/- from her. She had also reportedly told Smti. Nongrum that her husband had asked her not to make any payment for promotion. Her husband was called and questioned informally. During the course of examination, Smti M. Nongrum, stated that WPASI Smti S. Momin, ASI had told her that Smti Laloo had made a demand of Rs.40,000/- from her. She had also reportedly told Smti. Nongrum that her husband had asked her not to make any payment for promotion. Her husband was called and questioned informally. He is a Constable posted at Mawngap, He admitted the fact that he had told his wife (S. Momin) that no payment should be made. However, he denied the fact that Smti Laloo had demanded the money, Smti. S. Momin was confronted with Smti. M. Nongrum, but she still denied the allegation. It is mentioned her that since the husband of Smti. S. Momin admittedly asked her not to make any payment, it is apparent that there was some demand of money about which they had discussed. Smti M. Nongrum further stated that much before the declaration of the results, Smti. S. Momin had congratulated her for passing the exams, by stating that she herself had failed in the exams. However, when the results were out, the situation was reversed. Smti. M. Nongrum was declared failed and Smti. S. Momin was declared passed. Though Smti. Laloo has denied the allegation, the facts and circumstances of the matter strongly indicate that Smti. Laloo is perhaps involved in the matter. No definite opinion can be made in the absence of full-fledged enquiry in this regard. On scrutiny of the answer sheets of Sri B.R. Marak, it was found that he scored the marks as follows: 1) Law with book- 13/100 (He attempted 2) Law without - 21/100 all the required Book 6 questions in both the subjects) 3) Khasi language- 17/50 (Initially he was awarded 7 marks by the examiner but the marks was revised) 4) Hindi language - 27/50 (This is as per (Oral) the extract of the tabulation sheet. Exami­ner's marks sheet is not made available) As such he failed in three subjects. Sri N.K. Sinha obtained the following marks: 1) Law with book - 5/100 (He attempted only two , questions) 2) Law without - 10/100 (He attempted Book only six questions) 3) Khasi language - 30/50 (The examiner had given him 25 marks but the marks were revised) 4) Hindi language - 30/50 (This as per (Oral) extract of the tabulation sheet). As such he was also declared failed in law papers. As such he was also declared failed in law papers. Smti S. Momin obtained the following marks: 1) Law with book - 37/100 (Attempted only five questions) 2) Law without - 23/100 (Attempted Book only six questions) 3) Khasi language - 26/50 (examiner has initially awarded 20 marks but the -marks were revised) 4) Hindi language - 30/50 (as per the (Oral) extract of tabulation sheet only). Though she failed in Law papers, her name has appeared in the list of successful candidates. 9. As regards the allegation that ASI, P.C. Marak, had not appeared in the examination of 'Law with Book', but he was shown passed in the exam, it is found that in the particular column of the attendance sheet, on a small mark is there and it is not possible to opine whether that marks is his initials/ signatures or not. However, the IGP (TRG) has made the answer sheet for 'Law with book' available as per which he has obtained 52 marks out of 10ft after attempting all the six questions. As per record he was to appear in all the papers but he did not appear in other papers. As such this allegation is not found substantiated beyond all reasonable doubts. 10. As regards the allegation that mass copying had occurred in the examination and that despite writing identical answers few candidates were declared passed and others were declared failed, it is found that most of the candidates who were examined during the enquiry, had admitted that copying had taken place. On checking the answer scripts it is found that in the papers of law, Sri E.D. Sangma, and Sri Sudeep Sangma had copied answers of each other. Similarly, in examns. of Law and Khasi Language answers of Smti Usha Sinha and Sri N.K. Sinha are found to be identical. It is further found that the answers of Smti Usha Sinha and Smti S. Momin are identical in Khasi paper while answer of Smti S. Momin and Smti M. Nongrum are identical in papers of law. It is found that despite similarity of answers, Sri E.D. Sangma was declared failed while Sri Sudeep Sangma was declared passed. Similarly, Smti. Usha Sinha and Smti. S. Momin have been declared passed while Sri N.K. Sinha and Smti. M. Nongrum have been declared failed. It is found that despite similarity of answers, Sri E.D. Sangma was declared failed while Sri Sudeep Sangma was declared passed. Similarly, Smti. Usha Sinha and Smti. S. Momin have been declared passed while Sri N.K. Sinha and Smti. M. Nongrum have been declared failed. It is pointed out here that Sri Sudeep Sangma has scored following marks: 1) Law with book - 50/100 (He attempted six questions but in No. of questions the examiner revised the marks appar­ently for awarding him minimum pass marks) 2) Law without - 401/2/100 (He attempt booked only four questions) 3) Khasi language - 25/50 (The examiner had initially awarded only 15 marks but the marks were later revised) 4) Hindi language - 30/50 (It is as per the (Oral) extract of tabulation sheet only). It is found that despite his failure to obtain the minimum pass marks in the paper of "Law without books" his name has appeared in the list of successful candidates. It was alleged by Sri N.K. Sinha that Sri D. Swaraj, ASI had also copied the answers. This allegation is not found substantiated at his answers have been found to be different from those of others. Further, Sri D. Swaraj secured following marks: 1) Law with book - 65/100 (He attempted five questions only) 2) Law without - 53/100 (It is found book that he attem­pted eight qu­estions against the requirement of only 6 que­stions). Howe­ver, marks were awarded to seven quest-ions. If the marks obtain-ed in the last question (5 marks) are reduced from the total, he would have scored only 48 marks, i.e., two marks less than the mini­ mum pass marks). 3) Khasi language - 25/50 (The examiner had initially awarded 12 marks, but the marks were revised later on) 4) Hindi language - 27/50 (As per the (Oral) extract of the tabulation sheet only). As such it is found that ASI, D. Swaraj also got favourable result without deserving it. 11. During the enquiry it was found that those few candidate who appeared before me for deposition, including those who have been declared passed, had possessed very poor knowledge of law. They could not give satisfactory answers of even those questions which had appeared in their examination. Many of them even found it difficult to state whether the particular provision of law was from the IPC, Cr.P.C. or the Evidence Act. They could not give satisfactory answers of even those questions which had appeared in their examination. Many of them even found it difficult to state whether the particular provision of law was from the IPC, Cr.P.C. or the Evidence Act. They took plea that they had appeared in the examination with good preparation but after that they had forgotten everything. This plea is found to be untenable as it defeats the very purpose for which such exams, are required to be conducted. This fact indicates that perhaps those successful candidates had passed the exams. on the basis of some criteria other than the merit. 12. The enquiry thus revealed that criteria candidates, via., Smti. Usha Sinha. Smti. S. Momin, Sri Sudeep Sangma and Sri D. Swaraj have been declared passed even though they had failed in the exams. It has also revealed that marks of certain candidates for some subjects were revised without any reasonable criteria to facilitate minimum pass marks. It has come to light that during the examination, copying had also taken place. As mentioned earlier, since all the relevant documents relating to the examination were not made available to me. I could not conduct the enquiry to cover all the aspects of the allegations." 8. From the available materials on record, it is clearly seen that the results of the Departmental Examination in question were cancelled on the basis of adequate materials found during the course of enquiry conducted by the Inspector General of Police (CID), Meghalaya, which established the factum of leakage of question papers, absence of 3 invigilators, subsequent increase of marks by examiners, inclusion of marks of excess answers to the questions by the examiners, tampering of result-sheet, bribery, etc. etc. According to me, the Police Department of Meghalaya is a Regiment Force with hierarchial structure and a disciplined Force, and if in such a Force if any one is allowed to pass the Departmental Examination on extraneous consideration, it would affect the discipline and moral of the whole force and would also affect the efficiency of public service, and public in general would also suffer. The report further reveals about the irregularities which came to the light after the enquiry was conducted on the basis of a complaint and information, as discussed above. The report further reveals about the irregularities which came to the light after the enquiry was conducted on the basis of a complaint and information, as discussed above. This Court has seen and seized the nature and extent of irregularities and illegalities committed in the conduct of the said selection as highlighted above, and the same has been properly scrutinised. According to me, the conclusion so far arrived at by the respondent-authorities for a fresh selection is reasonable. In other words, cancellation of the results was quite fair and called for as the mischief played and cropped up in the course of selection process resulted in cancellation of the examination results. It would also be difficult on the part of the State machinery/ authority to pick out person who would be unlawfully benefited or wrongfully deprived of their selection, and in such situation it would not be possible nor necessary to issue individual show cause notice to each selectee, in other words, to the writ petitioners and the only way out would be to cancel the whole selection. In my considered view, the State-respondents had properly examined the motive behind the irregularities committed and issued the impugned order dated 21.7.2000. I am further of the view that the report of the Inspector General of Police (CID) shows that the whole selection smacked of malafide and arbitrariness, and apart from that no procedural standard prescribed for selection was at all followed in the selection process in question and, therefore, all norms/practice adopted in the said selection process were not free from doubt. According to me, the decision-making process of the authority concerned while declaring the results of the Departmental Examination as seen in documents marked Annexures-IV and V suffers from infirmity and regularity and, as such, it would not be required that the writ petitioners be served with show-cause notices before the impugned order of 21.7.2000 was found I made this observation keeping in view of the related decision of the Apex Court rendered in Krishna Yadav- Vs-State of Haryana, AIR 1994 SC 2166 : (1994)4 SCC 165 . There cant be any doubt about the proposition of law as proposed in the cases cited by Mr S.R. Sen, learned senior counsel, but those decisions would not rescue or help the case of these petitioners. I made this observation keeping in view the existing facts and circumstances of the present case. There cant be any doubt about the proposition of law as proposed in the cases cited by Mr S.R. Sen, learned senior counsel, but those decisions would not rescue or help the case of these petitioners. I made this observation keeping in view the existing facts and circumstances of the present case. At this stage, I hereby recall a recent decision of the Apex Court rendered in Union of India-Vs-O. Chakradhar, AIR 2002 SC 1119 , wherein the Apex Court held thus: "In our view the nature and the extent of illegalities and irregularities committed in conducting a selection will have to be scrutinised in each case so as to come to a conclusion about future course of action to be adopted in the matter. If the mischief played is no widespread and all pervasive, affecting the result, so as to make it difficult to pick out the persons who have been unlawfully benefitted or wrongfully deprived of their selection in such cases it will neither be possible nor necessary to issue individual show cause notices to each selectee. The only way out would be to cancel the whole selection. Motive behind the irregularities committed also has its relevance." In the case of Union of India-Vs-O. Chakradhar (supra), the authority terminated the services of the incumbents on account of cancellation of entire selection, and issuance of individual show cause notices to each selectee was not felt necessary as there were no widespread and all pervasive irregularities affecting the result of selection. In that case, the Apex Court further held thus: "As per the proper of the CBI whole selection smacks of mala fide and arbitrariness. All norms are said to have been violated with impunity at each stage viz. right from the stage of entertaining applications, with answer-sheets while in the custody of Chairman, in holding typing test, in interview and in the end while preparing final result. In such circumstances it may not be possible to pick out or choose any few persons in respect of whom alone the selection could be cancelled and their services in pursuance thereof could be terminated. The illegality and irregularity are so inter-mixed with the whole process of the selection that it becomes impossible to sort out right from the wrong or vice versa. The result of such a selection cannot be relied or acted upon. The illegality and irregularity are so inter-mixed with the whole process of the selection that it becomes impossible to sort out right from the wrong or vice versa. The result of such a selection cannot be relied or acted upon. It is not a case where a question of misconduct on the part of a candidate is to be gone into but a case where those who conducted the selection have rendered it wholly unacceptable. Guilt of those who have been selected is not the question under consideration but the question is could such selection be acted upon in the matter of public employment? We are, therefore, of the view that it is not one of these cases where it may have been possible to issue any individual notice of misconduct to each selectee and seek his explanation in regard to the large scale widespread and all pervasive illegalities and irregularities committed by those who conducted the selection which may of course possibly be for the benefit of those who have been selected but there may be a few who may have deserved selection otherwise but it is difficult to separate the cases of some of the candidates from the rest even if there may be some. The decision in the case of Krishna Yadav (supra) applies to the facts of the present case. The Railway Board's decision to cancel the selection cannot be faulted with. The appeal, therefore, deserves to be allowed." 9. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the view that these writ petitioners could not make out a case to justify interference with the impugned order of cancellation of the results of the related Departmental Examination. 10. In the result, the writ petition is devoid of merit and, accordingly, it is dismissed. The interim order dated 11.8.2000 passed in this writ petition and another interim order passed by this Court in Misc. Case No. 164(SH)/2000 on 3.11.2000 stand vacated with the direction to the State-respondents/authority concerned to conduct a fresh Departmental Examination for promotion of the ASIs to the posts of SI in terms of the earlier related decision of the authority concerned as early as possible preferably within a period of one month from today. It is made clear that the writ petitioners will also be allowed to participate in the said Departmental Examination, if they fulfill the eligibility criteria. It is made clear that the writ petitioners will also be allowed to participate in the said Departmental Examination, if they fulfill the eligibility criteria. Considering however the entire facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.