Judgment [Per Hon'ble the Chief Justice] 1. This Judgment shall dispose of the special appeals No. 9 & 11 of 2004. Both the appeals are against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 17th March, 2004 and 25th March, 2004 respectively. However, the subject, in both the appeals, is common and so the controversy Involved. Both the impugned judgments of the learned Single Judge are almost identical excepting the reference to the parties. The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petitions No. 1464 of 2002 (S/B) and 1483 of 2002 (S/B). These two writ petitions were filed by 46 petitioners In the first referred writ petition and by 27 petitioners in the second referred writ petition. In these writ petitions, the petitioners i.e. the respondents herein had challenged the order dated 1110-2002 passed by the State Government vide their order No. 1463 Revenue/ 2002. For the sake of convenience, we shall take up the facts as mentioned in the first referred writ petition. 2. The petitioners i.e. the respondents, herein, in both the writ petitions were selected Patwaris, who were sent for the training after their selection. By the impugned order, the selection of all the petitioners, in both the writ petitions, was cancelled. This wholesale cancellation of the selection process was challenged by the petitioners and the learned Single Judge allowed both the writ petitions quashing the impugned order dated 11-10-2002 holding it to be arbitrary and declared the same to be illegal and malafide with the result that the cancellation of the selection process, itself, was quashed. He also gave a liberty to the appellants / respondents to look into the irregularities, if any, arising in the selection in the individual cases after proper scrutiny and after giving Opportunity of hearing to such candidates. 3. Following facts will highlight the controversy involved : Basic Facts : i. All the petitioners belong to Pauri Garhwal district of State of Uttaranchal. It is a hilly district. The District Magistrate/Collector found that in the district of Paurl Garhwal, there were 21 posts of Patwari, which were vacant and owing to the promotions granted to 14 Patwaris, 14 more posts had become vacant. Similarly, due to the retirement of Patwaris, there were to be 13 more posts, which would be rendered vacant, and therefore, by December 2003, thus the total number of vacant posts of Patwari was to be 55. Similarly, due to the retirement of Patwaris, there were to be 13 more posts, which would be rendered vacant, and therefore, by December 2003, thus the total number of vacant posts of Patwari was to be 55. He, therefore, issued an advertisement inviting applications for those posts. Some posts, out of these posts, were to be reserved for the Schedule Casts & Schedule Tribes and some were the open posts. In the said advertisement, It was clearly pointed out that the selection was to be done by holding an examination, which was to be a written examination and included the physical endurance test as also the oral interview. ii. The Patwaris, in State of Uttaranchal, are governed by the rules framed by the erstwhile State of Uttar Pradesh known as U.P. Patwari Service Rules, 1963. These rules were, predominantly, for hill areas In the State of Uttar Pradesh, which hill areas, ultimately, fell In the newly created State of Uttaranchal w.e.f 09-11-2000. It is an admitted position that a syllabus for holding that examination and the manner of holding that examination was decided upon and a communication was sent by the State Government to the Commissioner, Garhwal & Kumaon Divisions as also to all the District Magistrates/Collectors of Uttaranchal. This is a Communication dated 15-05-2002, in which the attention of all the Collectors was invited to In the meeting dated 24-02-2002 presided over by Hon'ble the Revenue Minister. It was, further, communicated that it was decided by the State Government that the Selection of Patwaris, as against their vacant posts, would be done under Rules 212, 213 and 214 of the rules called the Lekhpal Service Rules. All the Collectors were, as such, directed to select the Patwaris so that these Patwaris could be sent for training at Almora, which was to commence from July of that year. [Under rule 6(1) of U.P. Patwari Service Rules, 1963, it is only after passing out training there, a candidate can get enlisted for recruitment/appointment to the post of Patwari.] iii. It, further, appears that besides the Patwaris Service Rules there are rules called Lekhpal Service Rules. It is, thus, an admitted position that the selection of the Patwaris was to be done adopting Rules 212, 213 & 214 of Lekhpal Service Rules. It, further, appears that besides the Patwaris Service Rules there are rules called Lekhpal Service Rules. It is, thus, an admitted position that the selection of the Patwaris was to be done adopting Rules 212, 213 & 214 of Lekhpal Service Rules. This was, probably, done, as, there was no specific guidance to be found In Patwari Service Rules for holding the examination. Rules 212, 213 & 214, particularly, pertained to the holding of examination. For the sake of convenience, English translation' of relevant parts of the amended rules 212 and 213, which were made applicable to the selection process of Patwaris, is being given as under : - "212. Candidates for admission : (1) Candidates for admission to Lekhpal School will be selected by the District Officer of the district on the basis of competitive examination. (2) For the selection of candidates, it is necessary that one should have passed intermediate examination or equivalent thereto, and on the 1st January of the year, in which he is to be admitted, he should have completed the age of 18 years, but should not have completed 25 years, but the maximum age shall be relaxable for the members of Schedule Castes/Schedule Tribes and Other Backward Classes as per the Government Orders issued in this regard. ………….. 213. Procedure for selection of candidates: ………….. (6) The District Magistrate shall classify the applications received in separate groups for general candidates and the reserved category candidates and shall prepare a combined list 'of each group serially in respect thereof. (7) Every candidate enlisted under sub-rule (1) shall have to appear In competitive examination. Competitive examination shall include viva voce also. The competitive examination shall consist of 100 marks as under: a. A written test shall consist of 60 marks for which the candidates will be given a question paper to be answered within a period of three hours, which shall consist of questions on General Hindi, Mathematics, General Knowledge and questions relating to problems of rural areas. b. Viva voce - 20 marks. c. Educational qualifications - 20 marks. d. For education qualifications out of 20 marks; 6 marks shall be assigned for high school, 10 marks for Intermediate and 4 marks for other educational qualifications. b. Viva voce - 20 marks. c. Educational qualifications - 20 marks. d. For education qualifications out of 20 marks; 6 marks shall be assigned for high school, 10 marks for Intermediate and 4 marks for other educational qualifications. A candidate getting first division, second division and third division in High School shall be given marks 6, 4 & 2 respectively, and for first division, second division and third division in the Intermediate, the candidate shall be given 10, 8 & 6 marks respectively. (8) The candidates, who had been successful in the written examination, will have to appear in physical endurance test, which will include competence of running 10 kms. within a period of 1 hour & 30 minutes and It will also be seen that the candidate can ride a bicycle. (9) An intimation of the dates of written and physical endurance test shall be given by the District Officer to the candidates by registered post. (10) Only the candidates, who had been successful in written and prescribed physical endurance test shall be called for viva voce (interview). "[Emphasis supplied by us] [Both the parties agree that these rules were the rules for selection. A copy of these rules is filed by the petitioners as Annexure 12 to the writ petition and in the counter affidavit, the State has not denied the same by stating, "That it is admitted to the petitioner that rule 212, 213 and 214 of the Land Record Manual were amended on 31-01-1991. The same later on amended rules have been filed by the petitioners as Annexure 12 to the writ petition. In the said rule of Patwari Training examination, a detailed method has been prescribed for the selection of Patwari Training. "] iv. According to the petitioners, as per the advertisement In which the last date for submission of the applications was 28-05-2002, the written examination was scheduled to be held on 16-06-2002 and the same was to be conducted in different schools in the district. The date for physical efficiency examination was fixed for 26-06-2002, while the date for Interview was fixed on 29-06-2002. After the written examination and viva voce was over, the petitioners were declared selected. It is, however, an admitted position that no physical efficiency test was taken of any of the petitioners. The date for physical efficiency examination was fixed for 26-06-2002, while the date for Interview was fixed on 29-06-2002. After the written examination and viva voce was over, the petitioners were declared selected. It is, however, an admitted position that no physical efficiency test was taken of any of the petitioners. A letter dated 2607-2002 regarding their selection was sent to the petitioners informing them that they could proceed to the Patwari Training School at Almora for training. There were some, admitted, errors said to have taken place in the declaration of the results and therefore, the Collector corrected those errors also. v. It seems, however, that there were some complaints regarding the selection process in respect of district of Pauri Garhwal, alone, to the effect that this selection was not done as per the rules and that there were number of irregularities committed during the selection process. The Government, therefore, conducted a thorough inquiry through the Commissioner, Garhwal Division and found that the whole selection process suffered from irregularities on about 11 counts and hence, the order came to be passed canceling the selection of the petitioners, who were selected from the district of Pauri Garhwal. Feeling aggrieved by this cancellation of the selection process, the petitioners rushed to this Court and as stated earlier, the impugned order of cancellation was quashed by the learned Single Judge. 4. It will be better, at this stage, to examine the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge in his judgment. The learned Judge has, firstly referred to the Lekhpal Service Rules, 1958 and the U.P. Patwari Service Rules as also to the various amendments. A communication by the Government, making applicable the rules 212, 213 & 214 of Lekhpal Service Rules to the selection of Patwaris, has also been noted by the learned Single Judge. He has, also, taken note of the pleadings in the writ petition, counter affidavit & rejoinder affidavit and then, referred to the contention of the learned counsel for the State that there were general complaints regarding the conduct of examination by the Collector, Pauri Garhwal for selection of Patwaris and that the Collector, Pauri Garhwal had completely ignored the order dated 15-05-2002, by which he was directed to hold the examination in the light of Rules 212, 213, & 214 of the Lekhpal Service Rules, 1958. The learned Judge, then, straight away refers to paragraphs 4, 7 & 8 of the impugned order, which paragraphs relate to only some of the irregularities. 5. The learned Judge goes on to state: "However, no substantial material was brought on record in order to justify the aforesaid submission of the State as will appear from the syllabus. Paragraphs 4, 7 & B of the order dated 11-10-2002 read as under.” 6. The learned Judge has, then, dubbed the contents of paragraphs 4 & 7 as "general in nature" and has, then, observed that no individual cases have been mentioned in the order to justify the cancellation. The learned Judge, then, goes on to hold that the cancellation could not be made, as there were no "charges" that the authorities were acting in an arbitrary manner or their integrity was doubtful. The learned Judge, then, went on to record that if the recruitment was made as per the recruitment policy framed by the State, then, the Government, being an appointing authority, there ought to have been some justification for making the appointment and not offering the same to the candidates, as there was always legitimate expectation after the completion of the due selection process. 7. The learned Judge, then, goes on to say that the en block cancellation, without affording any opportunity to the successful candidates, would result in miscarriage of justice as held by the Supreme Court in 2001 (1) SCC 182, Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. Vs. Girja Shanker Pant & others. The learned Judge, then, has quoted extensively from the said judgment. The learned Judge, then, makes an observation : "The petitioners have stated that natural justice requires that once the petitioners were selected to serve as Patwaris and appointment letter were issued in pursuance of the selection list and they were also sent for training, the petitioners were entitled to be heard before any order of cancellation was passed. 8. The learned Judge, then, holds that the respondents could not be permitted to act in in discretionary manner canceling the appointment of the petitioners, since, no material had been disclosed by the respondents in order to show any mala fide in the recruitment .. 9. 8. The learned Judge, then, holds that the respondents could not be permitted to act in in discretionary manner canceling the appointment of the petitioners, since, no material had been disclosed by the respondents in order to show any mala fide in the recruitment .. 9. The learned Judge, then, refers to the decisions of the Supreme Court in 1978(1) SCC 405, Mohinder Singh Gill Vs, Chief Election Commissioner; AIR 1993 SC 796, Union Territory of Chandigarh Vs. Dilbag Singh & others; 1995(2) AWC 1327, Ramdarshan Rai & others Vs. State of U,P, & others. A reference is also made to the cases of State of West Bengal Vs. Anwar Ali Sarkar, 1952 SCR 284; Menaka Gandhi Vs. Union of India, 1978(1) SCC 248; as also to few other cases, which have been quoted. A reference is also made to AIR 1991 SC 537, Shrilekha Vidyarthi Vs. State of U.P. and AIR 1967 SC 1427, S.G. Jaisinghani Vs. Union of India. A reference is also made to a quotation in Dicey "Law of the Constitution"- Tenth Edition as also to a decision in United States Vs. Wunderlick, 1951-3542 US 98 : 96 Law Edition 113. 10. A finding is, then given that on account of cancellation of the appointment of the petitioners, they have suffered civil consequences and a reference was made to AIR 1967 se 1269, State of Orissa Vs. Dr. Binapani Dei & others. The learned Judge, then, holds that the appointment cancellation orders could not have been passed without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Few other cases are, then, referred to and it is held by the learned Judge, relying on Union of India & others Vs. Rajesh P.U. Puthuvalnikathu & another, 2003 sec (L&S) 1048; that the cancellation of the requirement process en block was bad in law and there was no justification to deny appointment to the selected candidates. The learned Judge has, again, referred to the aspect of opportunity of hearing before the cancellation of order of appointment and ultimately, the learned Judge has recorded a finding that the en block cancellation of the selection of the petitioners suffered from vice of arbitrariness. 11. We have, deliberately; scanned through the whole judgment and we find the learned Judge has not, at all, referred to the reason numbers 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10 & 11. 11. We have, deliberately; scanned through the whole judgment and we find the learned Judge has not, at all, referred to the reason numbers 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10 & 11. The learned Judge has, even, referred to reasons numbers 4, 7 & 8 and held that those charges were of general nature. We may, therefore in short, point out what were the reasons for the cancellation of the selection process recorded in the impugned order, they are: i. In spite of the specific orders of the State Government, amended rules 212, 213 & 214 of Lekhpal Service Rules were not followed. ii. There were two question papers for the written examination In which the first was objective and the second answer paper was evaluated only of those candidates, who had scored at the benchmark level. However, this aspect was not highlighted, at all, in the advertisement and the candidates were kept in dark. iii. Patwaris have to act as the. Revenue Police also, hence, the physical efficiency test, which was compulsory as per the programme, was not taken at all. iv. Some candidates were deliberately given less marks in the oral interview with the objective to fail them and some others, who had scored less marks in the written examination, were given more marks in the oral interview to pass them. v. It was proved that out of the 41 candidates, 29 candidates were given more marks than they deserved. So also, out of the 11 candidates in the waiting list, in 6 answer papers less marks were given, while in one answer paper more marks were given. This was on the basis of the model question & answer. vi. 3 candidates scoring 182 marks were sent for training, while one candidate, whose roll number was 0082, was not sent though his score was 186 marks. vii. Roll number 0667 had scored 176 marks, but was kept on second number in the waiting list, whereas candidates bearing roll numbers 1082, 2346, 2939 and 3365, who had scored 184 marks. were kept below in the waiting list. viii. Reservation policy was not made applicable and the quota for the reserved candidates was not filled up. ix. vii. Roll number 0667 had scored 176 marks, but was kept on second number in the waiting list, whereas candidates bearing roll numbers 1082, 2346, 2939 and 3365, who had scored 184 marks. were kept below in the waiting list. viii. Reservation policy was not made applicable and the quota for the reserved candidates was not filled up. ix. Candidate bearing roll number 0137 was shown to have scored 145 marks in the written examination and 20 marks in the interview, whereas in the mark sheet dated 22nd 23rd and 24th July, 2002, there appear to be overwriting and the original 20 marks were raised to 40 marks. This candidate, though had scored 185 marks, he was selected while the candidate of roll number 0082, who had scored 186 marks was kept in the waiting list. x. Candidate bearing roll number 0819 scored, in all, 178 marks, however, he was not kept in the waiting list of the general candidate, whereas a candidate scoring 170 marks has been placed in the waiting list. xi. It was found by the Enquiry Officer that in the selection process, the orders of the State Government as also the relevant rules were completely breached and arbitrary attitude was shown while selecting. 12. We have, deliberately, quoted the 11 reasons, as, it was vociferously argued by Mr. U.K. Uniyal, Addl. Advocate General that the learned Judge has not giving the findings, at all, and further, he has not applied his mind to the whole order at all nor are his findings, in any manner, justified. When we examine the judgment, it is clear that the learned Judge has not referred to 8 reasons given in the impugned order and has, merely, quoted reasons numbers 4, 7 & 8, which were specific and clear giving a complete idea as to what had happened. The learned Judge did not bother even to mention in the judgement the other reasons, which were extremely weighty and suggestive of the towering irregularities, which took place in the selection process. We would immediately proceed to show that reason numbers 1, 2 & 3 were extremely relevant as while conducting the examination, Rules 212, 213 & 214 of the Lekhpal Service Rules were completely breached. So also though it was suggested that there would be a physical efficiency examination, that examination was never taken. We would immediately proceed to show that reason numbers 1, 2 & 3 were extremely relevant as while conducting the examination, Rules 212, 213 & 214 of the Lekhpal Service Rules were completely breached. So also though it was suggested that there would be a physical efficiency examination, that examination was never taken. This was nothing, but a complete derogation of the selection process, which was so thoroughly chalked out by the State Government. 13. The contention of Mr. U.K. Uniyal that the learned Judge found fault with the reasons without any justification is correct and we are unable to agree with the learned judge that the cancellation of the selection process was arbitrary, baseless or without any justification. In fact, there has been no application of mind in so far as the weighty reasons given in the impugned order in support of the cancellation are concerned. We shall discuss about the noncompliance of Rules 212, 213 & 214 of the Lekhpal Service Rules as also the non-compliance with the physical efficiency test now. 14. A glance at amended rule 213(7) contemplates a written examination and the oral examination of 100 marks. Sub-rule 7(a) provides that there would be a written examination for 60 marks, where the candidates would be tested in the subjects of Hindi, Mathematics, General Knowledge and the problems of rural sector. Sub-rule-7(b) provides that the oral interview would be for 20 marks while sub-rule 7(c) provides that 20 marks would be for educational qualifications. Sub-rule 7(d) provides for manner of distribution of 20 marks for the educational qualification. Sub-rule 8, specifically, provides that the candidate, who passed the written examination, would be tested for the physical endurance, where it would be seen if the candidate can run 10 kms. in 1 hour & 30 minutes. It will also be seen that he can ride a bicycle. Sub-rule 10., specifically, provides that the candidate, who passed the written examination and the physical endurance test, alone, would be called for oral interview. Sub-rule 12 suggests that in the oral interview, the personality of the candidate, his general knowledge and his suitability for the post would be tested and he would be awarded 20 marks. Sub-rule 10., specifically, provides that the candidate, who passed the written examination and the physical endurance test, alone, would be called for oral interview. Sub-rule 12 suggests that in the oral interview, the personality of the candidate, his general knowledge and his suitability for the post would be tested and he would be awarded 20 marks. Sub-rule 13 provides that a list of the candidates would be prepared on the basis of their score in the written examination, educational qualification & in interview and in that list, the marks scored by him in these three tests would be separately mentioned. 15. There was no requirement under the rules to hold objective test before the written examination. Nor was so mentioned in the advertisement that screening would be done in that manner. Assuming for a moment, it was felt necessary by the District Magistrate, Pauri Garhwal to hold objective test, to shortlist the candidates as suggested by the learned counsel for the respondents, we are of the view that this was done in complete violation of rule 213 of Lekhpal Service Rules by the authorities concerned. The introduction of the short-listing method clearly excluded those, who might have done better than the others in the subjective test. Therefore, this short-listing method cannot be viewed as correct giving a complete opportunity to ail the candidates to prove their merit. Unfortunately, by Inventing & introducing the short-listing method, the Collector actually excluded those candidates, who might have done well in subjective test, though they might not have done so well in the objective test. 16. Mr. L.P. Naithani, learned senior counsel tried to argue that the Collector always had a discretion to short-list the huge number of candidates. He pointed out that about 4,000 candidates appeared and therefore, the introduction of subjective test could not be said to be a departure from the Rules. We clearly fail to understand the argument. Rule 213 and more particularly, sub-rule (7) thereof very specifically refers to a competitive examination including viva voce. In the competitive examination, there was to be only one written test consisting of 60 marks, wherein the knowledge of the candidates in General Hindi, Mathematics, General Knowledge and problems regarding the problems of rural areas was to be tested, while the viva voce was to be for 20 marks and 20 marks were provided for the educational qualifications. In the competitive examination, there was to be only one written test consisting of 60 marks, wherein the knowledge of the candidates in General Hindi, Mathematics, General Knowledge and problems regarding the problems of rural areas was to be tested, while the viva voce was to be for 20 marks and 20 marks were provided for the educational qualifications. There is a specific method given, as to how the marks were to be given for the educational qualification. If the rule was so clear, we do not think there was any discretion left in the District Magistrate to introduce his own method of putting the candidates for objective test and then, conducting the subjective test. That was, clearly, not permissible because of the specific language of Rule 213(7) of Lekhpal Service Rules. Thus, the Collector introduced his own short-listing method, which again was a defective method as explained by us above. 17. This is apart from the fact that there could not have been enough time to evaluate the objective question papers and then, to select only about 800 persons for appearing in the final test. We are told that this was done in the shortest possible time. We fail to understand how it could be done so fast and that too, without giving any notice to the concerned candidates. Thus, the grounds No.1, 2 & 3 mentioned in the order dated 11-10-2002, whereby the order directing the petitioners to join training school at Almora, was cancelled; cannot be said to be without any substance. Unfortunately, the learned Single Judge did not, at all, look into this. 18. Mr. L.P. Naithani, learned Senior counsel relied on some decisions, wherein the Supreme Court has held that short-listing is permissible. He relied on 1994 (6) SCC 293 in the case of M.P. Public Service Commission Vs. Navneet' Kumar. We have examined the judgement very c1oseiy. That was a case, where the selection was to be made purely on the basis of the oral interview and the number of candidates applying for the post was enormous. It was, therefore decided by the selection board to short-list the applicants on some rational and reasonable basis. Such is not the case here. Here there was to be an examination in writing clearly indicating the scope of that examination. It was, therefore decided by the selection board to short-list the applicants on some rational and reasonable basis. Such is not the case here. Here there was to be an examination in writing clearly indicating the scope of that examination. Under such circumstances, by short-listing, that too, in an irrational manner as we have already pointed out, the concerned Collector could not have deprived the students from appearing in the examination as contemplated in sub-rules (6) & (7) of Rule 213 of Lekhpal Service Rules. The ruling cited by Mr. L.P. Naithanl, learned senior counsel is of no help to the respondents / petitioners. 19. Another case relied on by the learned senior counsel Mr. L.P. Naithanl was AIR 1988 Supreme Court 2073 in the case of S.B. Mathur & others Vs. Hon'ble the Chief Justice of Delhi High Court & others and our attention was, specifically, drawn to paragraph 19 thereof. This was a case, where the Supreme Court had allowed a discretion in the employer, who has a large number of employees in his service performing diverse duties, in treating different categories of, his employees as holding equal status posts or equated posts. Such is not the controversy here. There was only to be a common examination for all the candidates and therefore, on facts, this case does not help the respondents / petitioners. The only observations relied on by Mr. L,P. Naithani in paragraph 19 are as under:- "This decision points out that the minimum eligibility qualification has to be kept distinct from the zone of consideration and even if there are a large number of candidates, who satisfy the minimum eligibility requirement, it is not always required that they should be included in the zone of consideration, it being open to the authority concerned to restrict the zone of consideration amongst the eligible candidates in any reasonable manner." There were no compulsory rules operating in this field in that case and therefore, the decision is of no help to the petitioner. 20. As to the physical endurance test, it is clear from the record that no such physical test was, at all, conducted, as such, there was, again complete breach of aforesaid Rule 213. Mr. 20. As to the physical endurance test, it is clear from the record that no such physical test was, at all, conducted, as such, there was, again complete breach of aforesaid Rule 213. Mr. L.P. Naithani, Senior Advocate for the respondents drew our attention to Rule 11 of U.P. Patwari Service Rules, 1963, and argued that only before joining their duties, the candidates were required to produce medical certificates as to their fitness. The argument advanced by the learned senior counsel appears to be misconceived, as in our opinion, physical endurance test and medical fitness are two different requirements. A physical endurance test is a test, by which physical strength of the candidates is tested, and under the rules, it was required to be held before viva voce while the requirement of the production of medical fitness certificate, applies only to those, who are finally appointed as Patwaris. The patwaris, in the hilly districts of Uttaranchal, have a dual capacity. They have revenue duties and, in addition to that, they are required to do the duty of police personnel also. This requires arduous work of investigation, as also the control of crime and for that, the physical endurance test was contemplated. 21. It is an admitted position that this compulsory physical endurance test was completely ignored by the Collector in the selection process. Again, we would reiterate that only those candidates, who were successful in the physical endurance test along with the written test & interview, were to be sent for training meaning thereby that before a candidate was selected and sent for training, he had to pass the physical endurance test as contemplated in sub-rule (8) of Rule 213 of Lekhpal Service Rules. Therefore, sub-rules (8), (9) & (10) of Rule 213 were completely ignored. The selection of the candidates, without physical endurance test, is, in our opinion, not a valid selection and therefore, the violation of Rule 213 and ground for cancellation of the selection process, as mentioned in the order dated 11-10-2002 (Annexure 14 to the writ petition), thus, stand substantiated. In our opinion, the State Government was, therefore, justified in canceling the selection for this district. 22. Regarding this aspect Mr. In our opinion, the State Government was, therefore, justified in canceling the selection for this district. 22. Regarding this aspect Mr. L.P. Naithani, learned senior counsel argued that while the Patwari Service Rules were framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the amendments to those Rules were made by way of a Government Order, which was not permissible. In fact, there are very little or no pleadings in respect of this aspect of the validity of the amendments. On the other hand, during the debate, it was conceded that the selection was to be governed by the amendment rules, which we have quoted in the earlier part of the judgement. However, Mr. L.P. Naithani very earnestly contended that the Patwari Service Rules could not be amended and a new method of selection could not be introduced by introducing amended rules 212, 213 & 214 of the Lekhpal Service Rules. 23. We were taken, thoroughly, through the Patwari Service Rules. In these Rules, Rule 4 sub-rule (6) provides that the Collector would maintain a list of the candidates, who have passed the examination of the Special Patwari School, Almora. We have gone through the Rules very closely, however, we find that the Rules are completely silent in respect of the manner, in which the selection of Patwaris would be made. There is only one rule, which is Rule 11, which suggests that a Patwari cannot be appointed, who suffers from physical or mental ailment. Barring this, there is nothing in the rules to suggest any selection process being provided for. What has been done by the State Government is that they have devised a method for selecting the Patwaris and for that purpose, the State Government has used Lekhpal Service Rules and have moulded those Rules so as to get the best possible persons as the Patwaris. We do not think, therefore, that there was any attempt to amend the Patwari Rules. All that has been done by the State Government is that they have provided definite' rules for selection of Patwaris. Therefore, it cannot 'be said, as contended by the learned senior counsel, that the rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India were amended by the introduction of Rules 212, 213 & 214 of Lekhpal Service Rules for selection. The contention, therefore, has to be rejected. 23. Therefore, it cannot 'be said, as contended by the learned senior counsel, that the rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India were amended by the introduction of Rules 212, 213 & 214 of Lekhpal Service Rules for selection. The contention, therefore, has to be rejected. 23. The learned Single Judge appears to have examined the entire matter in controversy as cancellation of appointment, while actually, the petitioners of writ petitions in question are yet to be issued appointment letters, In other words, they have not yet been appointed, rather under Rules 6(1) of U.P. Patwari Rules, 1963, they get enlisted for recruitment after selection and completion of the training from the Patwari School. A right is created in a candidate only after his appointment and it is well understood in the service jurisprudence that a mere selection does not create any right. If the authorities concerned gather an impression that the whole selection process was riddled with irregularities and in total contradiction of the Rules, they would always be justified in canceling the whole selection process. We do not think that before canceling the selection process, such candidates, who were selected, were required to be given any opportunity of hearing because the matter did not pertain to the individual cases alone, but to the general conduct of the selection process, itself, which we have found to be defective even otherwise. Therefore, the question of giving them opportunity of hearing, at this stage, did not arise since there were no appointments made. The learned Single Judge seems to be completely oblivious of this fact and has, ail through, treated as if the appointments of the petitioners were cancelled. In the portion of the judgement of the learned Single Judge, which we have quoted in the earlier part of the judgement, we have deliberately highlighted the word "appointment", which, was used by the learned Single Judge. That, in our opinion, was a factually incorrect statement. 24. At this stage, however, it will be our task to consider the case law cited by the learned Senior Counsel Mr. L.P. Naithani in support of his contention that there ought to be a hearing even if the whole selection process is to be rejected. That, in our opinion, was a factually incorrect statement. 24. At this stage, however, it will be our task to consider the case law cited by the learned Senior Counsel Mr. L.P. Naithani in support of his contention that there ought to be a hearing even if the whole selection process is to be rejected. Learned senior counsel for the respondents I petitioners, in this connection, drew our attention to the case law reported in (2002) 9 SCC 700, Jaswant Singh & others Vs. State of M.P. & others and argued that the selected candidates should have been given opportunity of hearing before the cancellation of the selection process. We have gone through the judgement given in the said case.' In the said case, under Section 83 of M.P. Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1981, there was a provision that no order could have been passed under sub Section (1) by the District Magistrate to the prejudice of a party concerned, as such, the Apex Court found the order of the Collector canceling the appointment of Lower Division Clerk, as bad in law, being without opportunity of hearing given to the cL'l1cerned employee. Therefore, the ruling would be of no help to the petitioners. 25. Another ruling relied upon by Mr. L.P. Naithani, learned senior counsel is Munna Roy Vs. Union of India & others reported in 2000 (9) SCC 283. The portion relied upon by Mr. L.P. Naithani is as follows : "The High Court while interfering with the order of Tribunal, has taken into consideration the fact that mere inclusion of a person's name in the list does not confer any' right and therefore, mandamus cannot be issued. The aforesaid enunciation, as a proposition of law, cannot be disputed. However, if the administrative authority takes a decision and the reasons for such decision are erroneous, then, such a decision can be interfered with by a Court of law. In the case in hand, the appellant pursuant to an advertisement, had applied for and she had requisite qualification. She became successful in the written test as well as in the viva voce. In the case in hand, the appellant pursuant to an advertisement, had applied for and she had requisite qualification. She became successful in the written test as well as in the viva voce. 'The list of successful candidates included her name, but the ground for cancellation of the entire list without even informing the applicant was that though the minimum qualification required was a matriculate, she was a graduate and thus, dubious method has been adopted for being selected We have no hesitation of come to a conclusion that the reasons, which weighed with the authorities to quash the selection, are not germane and must be held to be arbitrary and irrational." 26. From this ruling, the senior counsel, Mr. L.P. Naithani suggests that though there was no right created by a mere selection, the selection could not be cancelled in the absence of valid & weighty reasons and in that sense, we should look into the matter from the angle that in this case, while setting aside the selection, the State also did not give any hearing to the petitioners. The case of Munna Roy, cited above, pertained to a cancellation of selection of a lady, who Possessed higher qualification than necessary. The Supreme Court, on the examination of facts on merits, came to the conclusion that there were absolutely no valid reasons to order the cancellation and that too, without hearing. The learned counsel, very heavily, relied on this case. However, there is no parity of facts in the present case. The Supreme Court did not, in this case, set aside the selection on account of opportunity of hearing having been denied. The Supreme Court, as a matter of fact, went into the whole process and found that the reasons given for cancellation of selection process were entirely wrong & erroneous and it was for that reason that the Supreme Court found fault with the cancellation order. We have already shown that here the reasons given for cancellation of the selection process were extremely relevant and weighty. We have already given a finding that the whole selection process was riddled with irregularities and therefore, in our opinion, the observations of the Supreme Court would not help the respondents / petitioners. 27. We have already shown that here the reasons given for cancellation of the selection process were extremely relevant and weighty. We have already given a finding that the whole selection process was riddled with irregularities and therefore, in our opinion, the observations of the Supreme Court would not help the respondents / petitioners. 27. Thus to conclude, we must hold that the learned Single Judge was in error in holding that the cancellation of the whole selection process could not be made without hearing the selected candidates. In our opinion, the State Government was justified in canceling the Whole selection process and that there was no necessity of hearing the petitioners since they were not appointed and thus, there was no right in the petitioners. This is apart from the fact that the Whole selection process was faulty, in total breach of the rules and without observing the necessary norms culled out for holding the selection process. Under such circumstances, the State Government was justified in canceling the selection process and therefore, we are unable to agree with the learned Single Judge and must set aside the judgements and dismiss the writ petitions. 28. In the circumstances, for the reasons as discussed above, both these special appeals deserve to be allowed. Accordingly, the same are allowed. Both the writ petitions mentioned above shall stand dismissed and the judgements of the learned Single Judge dated 17th March; 2004 and 25th March, 2004 passed in writ petitions No. 1464 of 2002(S/B) and 1483 of 2002 (S/B) respectively, are set aside. While passing this order, we feel it necessary, in the interest of justice, to observe that the examination of Patwaris in the district of Pauri may be held afresh permitting all the successful and unsuccessful candidates of the last examination, Including the respondents / petitioners, to appear in the written test & physical endurance test and the selection be done in accordance with the Rules.