JUDGMENT Hon’ble V.K. Shukla, J.—Petitioners, in this bunch of writ petitions, are questioning the validity of order dated 29.8.2006 issued by State Government, order dated 31.8.2006 issued by Director, Bal Vikas Sewa Evam Pushtahar, U.P. Lucknow and the order dated 5.8.2006 passed by District Programme Officer, Mau, cancelling the entire selection of Anganbadi Workers and Helpers, held pursuant to advertisement dated 5.6.2006. 2. Brief background of the case is that scheme of Integrated Child Development Services (in short ICDS) was introduced in the year 1975 on the recommendation of the Planning Commission of India and the same is essentially a food supplementation programme. The said scheme was made applicable in State of U.P. also and Government Order dated 16.12.2003 issued. The said scheme was not being implemented in its true letter and spirit, as a result whereof complaint was made in the shape of Public Interest Litigation before the Hon’ble Apex Court being writ petition No. 196 of 2001 under Article 32 of the Constitution of India by a Social Organization, known as People’s Union for Civil Liberties. Hon’ble Apex Court taking cognizance of the complaint, which was made, proceeded to put every State throughout India as well as Union of India under notice and the said scheme is being monitored. On 7.10.2004 Hon’ble Apex Court took serious note of the matter and expressed its shock and surprise at the attitude of Central Government and also took notice of the progress of the scheme in various States throughout the country and issued consequential direction. Hon’ble Apex Court gave a clear cut directive that vacancies for operational ICDS shall be fulfilled. The State Government i.e. State of U.P. keeping in view the directives issued by Hon’ble Apex Court proceeded with pace for effective implementation of the aforesaid scheme. 3. Officiating District Programme Officer on 3.6.2006 published in daily News paper “Dainik Jagaran" dated 5.6.2006, Advertisement for making selection and appointment of Anganbadi Karyakartri and Assistants. On 23.6.2006 District Magistrate, Mau passed an order and by means of the same Sub-Divisional Magistrates were appointed as Chairman of the respective selection committees in District Mau and respective dates were also fixed. Petitioners have contended that meeting of selection committee was held and the said selection committee comprised of Deputy District Magistrate with other members. On 23.6.2006 District Magistrate, Mau passed an order and by means of the same Sub-Divisional Magistrates were appointed as Chairman of the respective selection committees in District Mau and respective dates were also fixed. Petitioners have contended that meeting of selection committee was held and the said selection committee comprised of Deputy District Magistrate with other members. Petitioners have contended that thereafter select list was finalized in terms of Government Orders dated 16.12.2003, 12.1.2006 and 17.5.2006 issued by State Government. Thereafter, petitioners have contended that appointment letters were issued to the selected candidates. Petitioners have contended that appointment letters were issued and the selected candidates joined pursuant thereto. On 1.8.2006 an order was issued by the Secretary, Mahila Kalyan Evam Bal Vikas Vibhag referring to oral instruction received on telephone from the Minister of Bal Vikas that large scale complaints qua selections are being received, enquiry is must; selection proceedings to be freezed, and further no appointment orders be issued. It was also mentioned that some senior officer be sent to get the matter investigated qua complaints received and of enquiry be submitted. On 3.8.2006, Officiating District Programme Officer issued consequential order. On 5.8.2006, further order was passed mentioning therein that even where appointment orders have been issued, persons have joined, such persons be not permitted to discharge their duties. On 29.8.2006 another letter was issued by the Secretary to State Government referring to the letter of Minister concerned dated 1.8.2006, directing therein cancellation of entire selection proceeding and for holding selection proceedings afresh after re-advertising the vacancies and for suspending Officiating District Programme Officer and other Bal Vikas Pariyojna Adhikari, and for making new arrangement. In the letter dated 29.8.2006, it was mentioned that qua complaints which had been received pertaining to selection, committee be constituted and two member committee with Shiva Nand Ojha, Special Secretary, Mahila Kalyan Evam Bal Vikas and Daya Shankar Srivastava, Additional Director, Bal Vikas Sewa Evam Pushtahar, was constituted, and they were to submit report within 15 days. On 31.8.2006, District Magistrate, Mau submitted report to the State Government after conducting inquiry with regard to complaints referred to in various communications and sought further directions. On 31.8.2006, District Magistrate, Mau submitted report to the State Government after conducting inquiry with regard to complaints referred to in various communications and sought further directions. On 31.8.2006 Special Secretary, Mahila Kalyan Evam Bal Vikas, Sri Shivanand Ojha sent communication through fax to the District Magistrate, Mau for making available the documents referred to therein for the purpose of inquiry being conducted by two member committee. Thereafter, order has been issued by Director, Bal Vikas Sewa Evam Pushtahar, U.P. Lucknow on 31.8.2006, cancelling the entire selection and thereafter consequential order has been passed by District Programme Officer on 5.8.2006. At this juncture present writ petition has been filed. 4. On the matter being taken up, Sri C.B. Yadav, learned Chief Standing Counsel, representing State-respondents produced record to show that there were serious complaints qua selections which had been carried out and tried to justify the action which has been taken for cancelling the entire selection, and urged that no interference be made. The documents which have been produced by Sri C.B. Yadav, learned Chief Standing Counsel, starts with letter dated 10.8.2006 written by Minister concerned addressed to the Secretary, mentioning therein that in District Mau qua selection and appointment of Anganbadi workers and helpers various complaints have been received and the same are being appended. It has also been mentioned that through fax directives have been issued for cancelling the selections. It has also been mentioned that during stay of the Minister at Ballia, a large number of citizens of District Mau met him and made complaint of corruption in selection so held. Concerned Minister has mentioned that at once selection process be got cancelled, fresh advertisement be made, the concerned officials be suspended, new incumbent be appointed and transparency be maintained in selection. Along with the said letter of Minister, letter dated 4.8.2006 is annexed and therein it has been mentioned that authorities have indulged in arbitrariness, and have ignored merit and candidate with less merit have been selected, on extraneous consideration, as such selection be cancelled. Complaint of Raj Kumari is there, wherein she has made complaint that her merit was higher, but on account of higher income certificate, she has not been selected, and the candidate who has been selected, her income certificate is fictitious, as her husband is working as security guard and his income is more than Rs. 5,000/- per month. Complaint of Raj Kumari is there, wherein she has made complaint that her merit was higher, but on account of higher income certificate, she has not been selected, and the candidate who has been selected, her income certificate is fictitious, as her husband is working as security guard and his income is more than Rs. 5,000/- per month. Thereafter complaint has been made by one Tetardevi, and therein she has complained that Neelam Kushwaha succeeded in procuring appointment on the basis of fictitious income certificate and she has got her age changed, and further that her husband is financially sound as he runs P.C.O. and general store shop. Thereafter complaint has been made qua appointment of one Barawati Devi on the ground that she has been offered appointment as widow, whereas she has married younger brother of her husband Nand Lal, as such her appointment is bad. Thereafter complaint has been made by Kushum Lata Devi complaining that Neeraj has been illegally selected, whereas her merit was much higher. Thereafter, complaint has been made by one Pushpa Devi contending therein that merit of Tara Devi is less qua her merit. Next complaint is of Premshila Devi contending therein that Smt. Kaushalya Devi has been illegally selected, as her husband is Railway employee. Another complaint has been made by Bajrang Singh Bajju. Said complaint mentions that authorities have misled many incumbents and have taken illegal gratification for making selection and appointment. Thereafter on non-judicial stamp paper Mauju Yadav and Mithilesh have made complaint mentioning that demand of Rs. 40,000/- was made from Mauju Yadav and Mithilesh had paid Rs. 35,000/-. Complaint has been made by Mahendra Yadav, Sunita Devi and Urmila Devi addressed to the Minister, and therein this much is apparent that it is written by one and the same person and the only complainants are different, mentioning therein that demand of money was made. Thereafter complaint has been made by Amarnath Yadav making allegations against authorities. On 5.8.2006 complaint had been made by Raghvendra Singh Ghura qua the conduct of the authorities. On the basis of these materials, which have come forward, it has been sought to be contended that power of cancellation has been bona fidely exercised, as there were allegations of corruption and malpractice in the selection. 5. On 5.8.2006 complaint had been made by Raghvendra Singh Ghura qua the conduct of the authorities. On the basis of these materials, which have come forward, it has been sought to be contended that power of cancellation has been bona fidely exercised, as there were allegations of corruption and malpractice in the selection. 5. Parties have agreed that on the basis of averments mentioned in writ petition and the documents which have been produced by Sri C.B. Yadav, learned Chief Standing Counsel, present writ petition be heard and decided without pleadings being exchanged. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioners contended with vehemence that in the present case without undertaking any enquiry, whatsoever, selections have been cancelled, whereas grievances which were sought to be raised were localized one, and there was no necessity to cancel the entire selections. 7. The question posed is as to whether power of cancellation has been rightly and validly exercised in fact of the present case or same has been exercised wrongly and arbitrarily? Before proceeding to answer the question posed above, the view point of Hon’ble Apex Court is being looked into. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. O. Chakradhar, 2002 (3) SCC 146 has taken the view that where mischief in conducting the selection was so widespread and all pervasive, affecting the result and it was difficult to identify the persons unlawfully benefited or wrongfully deprived of selection then in that event whole selection should be cancelled. Relevant paragraph 8 of the said judgment is being quoted below : “In our view the nature and the extent of illegalities and irregularities committed in conducting a selection will have to be scrutinized 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 so widespread and all-pervasive, affecting the result, so as to make it difficult to pick out the persons who have been unlawfully benefited 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 committee also has its relevance.” 8. The only way out would be to cancel the whole selection. Motive behind the irregularities committee also has its relevance.” 8. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India and others v. Rajesh P.U., 2003 (97) SCC 285 has taken the view that when illegalities are identifiable then entire selection ought not to be cancelled. Relevant paragraph-6 of the aforesaid judgment is being quoted below : “6. On a careful consideration of the contentions on either side in the light of the materials brought on record, including the relevant portions of the report said to have been submitted by the Special Committee constituted for the purpose of inquiring into the irregularities, if any, in the selection of candidates, filed on our directions—which report itself seems to have been also produced for the perusal of the High Court—there appears to be no scope for any legitimate grievance against the decision rendered by the High Court. There seems to be no serious grievance of any malpractices as such in the process of the written examination—either by the candidates or by those who actually conducted them. If the Board itself decided to dictate the questions on a loudspeaker in English and Hindi and none of the participants had any grievance in understanding them or answering them, there is no justification to surmise at a later stage that the time lapse in dictating them in different languages left any room or scope for the candidates to discuss among them the possible answers. The posting of invigilators for every ten candidates would belie any such assumptions. Even that apart, the Special Committee constituted does not appear to have condemned that part of the selection process relating to conduct of the written examination itself, except noticing only certain infirmities only in the matter of evaluation of answer sheets with reference to correct answers and allotment of marks to answers of some of the questions. Even that apart, the Special Committee constituted does not appear to have condemned that part of the selection process relating to conduct of the written examination itself, except noticing only certain infirmities only in the matter of evaluation of answer sheets with reference to correct answers and allotment of marks to answers of some of the questions. In addition thereto, it appears that the Special Committee has extensively scrutinized and reviewed the situation by re-evaluating the answer sheets of all the 134 successful as well as the 184 unsuccessful candidates and ultimately found that except 31 candidates found to have been declared successful though they were not really entitled to be so declared successful and selected for appointment there was no infirmity whatsoever in the selection of the other successful candidates than the 31 identified by the Special Committee. In the light of the above and in the absence of any specific or categorical finding supported by any concrete and relevant material that widespread infirmities of an all pervasively nature, which could be really said to have undermined the very process itself in its entirety or as a whole and it was impossible to weed out the beneficiaries of one or the other irregularities, or illegalities, if any, there was hardly any justification in law to deny appointment to the other selected candidates whose selections were not found to be, in any manner, vitiated for any one or the other reasons. Applying a unilaterally rigid and arbitrary standard to cancel the entirety of the selections despite the firm and positive information that except 31 of such selected candidates, no infirmity could be found with reference to other, is nothing but total disregard of relevancies and allowing to be carried away by irrelevancies, giving a complete go by to contextual considerations throwing to the winds the principle of proportionality in going farther than what was strictly and reasonably to meet the situation. In short the competent authority completely misdirected itself in taking such an extreme and unreasonable decision of cancelling the entire selections, wholly unwarranted and unnecessary even on the factual situation found too, and totally in excess of the nature and gravity of what was at stake, thereby virtually rendering such decision to be irrational. 9. This Court in Civil Misc. In short the competent authority completely misdirected itself in taking such an extreme and unreasonable decision of cancelling the entire selections, wholly unwarranted and unnecessary even on the factual situation found too, and totally in excess of the nature and gravity of what was at stake, thereby virtually rendering such decision to be irrational. 9. This Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 581 of 2006, Kiran Sonkar and another v. State of U.P. and others, 2006 (3) ADJ 670 (All), has taken the view that there is no justification in cancelling the entire selection when the impact of irregularities, illegalities and lapses can be identified separately, specially when no element of subjectivity is involved and it would not be difficult to identify individual illegality. Paragraphs 23 and 27 being relevant are quoted below : “23. The Government Order dated 16.12.2003 is sufficiently comprehensive prescribing the manner of selection. A perusal of clause (iii) of the Government Order, which indicates the procedure of selection, reflects an objective mode of selection without there being any provision for holding an interview. The selections have to be held from the category of women indicated therein and according to educational qualifications prescribed. The manner of awarding marks in respect of educational qualifications is clearly stipulated and therefore, the selections have to be held objectively. The certificates which are required pertaining to the income of a candidate has to be issued by the Tehsildar concerned. The constitution of the selection committee reflects a fair representation of the women from every section of society. In view of the aforesaid procedure which is almost objective in nature it would not be difficult to identify any individual irregularity or illegality. It will be a matter of simple scrutiny of the documents and the manner of award of marks for judging the merit of a candidate. There being no element of subjectivity involved in the selection process, there would no difficulty in identifying any irregularity and disqualifying an undeserving candidate. There being a complete procedure provided for assessing the validity of selection, it would not be necessary to cancel any and every selections as has been attempted by the State Govt. 27. Whenever a complaint is received the same has to be inquired into on the basis of grievances raised therein. There being a complete procedure provided for assessing the validity of selection, it would not be necessary to cancel any and every selections as has been attempted by the State Govt. 27. Whenever a complaint is received the same has to be inquired into on the basis of grievances raised therein. If the complaint is of an individual nature then the same can be examined at the block level and a report submitted to the appropriate authority for taking action in the matter. In such circumstances there cannot be a general direction for cancellation of the selections throughout the State of U.P. The measurer adopted under the impugned Government Order therefore, in the opinion of the Court was an absolutely uncalled for step and the same could have been minimized by issuing directions in respect of such incidents which deserved to be inquired into and proceeded with in accordance with law. This would have also not burdened the administration with the exercise of holding fresh selections even where there were no complaints. It is not the case of the State Government that it is not possible to make any such inquiry or it was impossible to control such individual aberrations which were reported to it. The State Government could have issued directions to the respective authorities for taking appropriate action. In the matter of Block Maharajganj, district Jaunpur action has been taken and which will be proceeded with in accordance with law. The selections in the block Maharajganj can be examined and fresh selections can be ordered in view of the incident which was reported. This would however, not justify the cancellation of selections throughout the State of U.P.” 10. The common thread running in legal propositions quoted above is clear that selection on the whole can be cancelled only when there is material leading to inference that there are widespread infirmities of all pervasive nature, affecting the result and it was difficult to identify the persons unlawfully benefited or wrongfully deprived of selection. Exercise has to be undertaken for finding out as to whether complaint is localized one liable to be identified or same is large scale and widespread one, or the illegality and irregularity are so intermixed with the whole process of selection that it becomes impossible to sort out the right from the wrong or vice versa. 11. Exercise has to be undertaken for finding out as to whether complaint is localized one liable to be identified or same is large scale and widespread one, or the illegality and irregularity are so intermixed with the whole process of selection that it becomes impossible to sort out the right from the wrong or vice versa. 11. Here, in the present case undisputed position is that inquiry has been directed to be undertaken by two-member-enquiry-committee, and it is also reflected from the record which has been produced that each and every document qua selection has been asked for. Report of District Magistrate is that out of 880 selections made, there are only 117 complaints out of which three complaints have been found correct and said appointments have been cancelled. Forty five complaints are baseless, and qua remaining complaints enquiry is being made as they are in relation to income, caste and domicile certificates or educational qualifications. Consequently, in the present case without undertaking any inquiry, it was totally arbitrary on the part of respondents to have cancelled the entire selection. Here, order of cancellation has been passed at the first instance, followed by inquiry, which is wholly unjustifiable. Complaints made to Minister are also localized and generalized one, which can be easily ascertained in enquiry. 12. Consequently, writ petitions succeed, and are allowed. Impugned orders are quashed. However, passing of this order will not prevent the respondents from undertaking inquiry as has already been directed, and the selections made, shall abide by final outcome of the enquiry. Petition Allowed. ———