JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. The State Government advertised 36 vacancies for the post of Gram Panchayat Adhikari (Group-C) in the District Azamgarh. In response, the petitioners along with others applied and appeared in the written examination held on 13.12.1998. 3. The result of the written examination was declared by the respondents in which 144 candidates were declared selected for the interview in respect of various categories i.e. General Category, O.B.C. and S.C/S.T. categories. 4. As per instructions contained in the aforesaid advertisement, petitioners also appeared in the interview held from 24.2.1999 to 27.2.1999. In the result declared by the Selection Committee 18 candidates from General Category, 10 candidates from O.B.C. and 8 candidates from S.C/S.T. category were finally selected. Waiting list of candidates were also published by the Selection Committee according to which 4 candidates from General Category, 2 candidates from O.B.C. and 2 candidates from S.C/S.T. category were shown selected. 5. In the meantime various complaints with regard to the aforesaid selection were received in the office of the respondents and it was decided to hold an enquiry m the manner the selections were held. The Commissioner, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh vide letter dated 10.7.2000 directed the District Magistrate, Azamgarh and the Additional Commissioner (Administration) Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh jointly to hold enquiry in respect of the complaints about the irregularities said to have been committed in the aforesaid selection. In pursuance of the Enquiry Report submitted by the Enquiry Committee, the Director, Panchayat Raj, U.P. directed the District Magistrate, Azamgarh to hold fresh interviews of the selected candidates. It was further directed that the marks in respect of the sports certificates be also given as per the rules. 6. The Counsel for the petitioners referred to the G.O. dated 9th June, 1986 issued by the State Government (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) wherein criteria for giving marks in respect of sports certificates has been laid down and submitted the enquiry conducted by the Commissioner. He submits that in the complaint, allegations were made that some persons had submitted false and forged certificates along with their applications, but after thorough scrutiny and verifications the complaint were found to be baseless and incorrect not even one sports certificate of the successful candidates was found to be forged. He submits that in the complaint, allegations were made that some persons had submitted false and forged certificates along with their applications, but after thorough scrutiny and verifications the complaint were found to be baseless and incorrect not even one sports certificate of the successful candidates was found to be forged. It is further submitted that at one stage the respondent deducted 2 marks of each of the finally selected candidates namely (1) Shri Ram Pratap Singh; (2) Shri Shailendra Kumar Singh; (3) Shri Vinay Kumar; (4) Nripendra Pandey; (5) Anoop Kr. Srivastava; (6) Shri Anil Kr. Srivastava: (7) Shri Pratap Man Singh; (8) Shri Vijai Pratap Yadav: (9) Shri Ajeet Singh; (10) Shri Arivind Kr. Pathak; (11) Shri Sanjai Kumar Srivastava; (12) Shri Awadhesh Singh and (13) Shri Vinod Kumar Singh, but out of the aforesaid 13 persons, 8 remained in the selected list and 4 were allegedly and arbitrarily ousted from the said list by the respondents to introduce their own candidates who had not been able to qualify after the interview, but were trying to get the interview conducted afresh, so that, they may be able to manipulate things in their favour. 7. It is vehemently urged that the results were declared following the due process of selection in accordance with law and the result was declared, hence there is no justification for holding of fresh interview. Merely a false or baseless complaint is made by a political person namely Shri Ramakant Mishra, who happened to belong to B.J.P. party. It is stated that the selection process had been completed in accordance with law as per the rules for appointment of class III employees and they are entitled to appointment in the circumstances of the case. 8. Allegations of mala fide have also been made against respondent No. 6 Shri Panchanan Rai. It is stated that he wanted to get his own candidates selected, but as the District Panchayat Raj Officer declined to make appointments and fair and impartial selections were made in which the petitioners were also been selected. Shri Panchanan Rai raised question regarding the selection in the House. Thereupon an enquiry has also been conducted, but no specific reason was assigned for holding the enquiry. Shri Panchanan Rai raised question regarding the selection in the House. Thereupon an enquiry has also been conducted, but no specific reason was assigned for holding the enquiry. It is submitted that infact the selection was completed long back in the year 1999, as such there is no justification for keeping the implementation of the said selection pending without any reason and as such no fresh selections can be held. 9. Counsel for the respondents submit that in compliance with the direction dated 10.7.2000, enquiry was held by the Additional Joint Commissioner and District Magistrate, Azamgarh in which findings were recorded with regard to the petitioner at serial No. 2730. The enquiry report has been produced in the Court and from bare perusal of the report, it is clear that the petitioners have put cross marks in column 6Gha i.e. “Yadi Aap Khiladi Ho To Diya Gaya Code Jo Aap Par Lagu Ho Koshtak Me Ankit Kare”. He submits that after enquiry fresh merit list was prepared deducting the marks of the candidates including the petitioner who were found ineligible in the enquiry. It is further submitted that the enquiry report aforesaid as well as merit list prepared afresh was sent to the Government under covering letter dated 15.2.2001. In response to the enquiry report, the Government ultimately decided to hold fresh interview to allot marks for games after verification of their certificates. He concludes that there is nothing wrong in holding of fresh interview and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 10. In rebuttal Counsel for the petitioners submit that the writ petition has been amended by the Courts order dated 26.5.2005. He has referred to Annexure-2 and Annexure-3 to the counter affidavit, which is order/communication dated 20.4.2001 issued by the Secretary, U.P. Government, Lucknow addressed to District Magistrate, Azamgarh with regard to the programme rescheduled for Samooh Ga examination. It is stated that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioners, which was in violation of the principles of natural justice, as no reason at all has been assigned in the aforesaid order for holding re-examination, the order to hold the fresh interview is bad. It is stated that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioners, which was in violation of the principles of natural justice, as no reason at all has been assigned in the aforesaid order for holding re-examination, the order to hold the fresh interview is bad. It is stated that a perusal of the enquiry report annexed to the counter affidavit also goes to show that the allegation was levelled only against the selection of one Shri Suresh Pal s/o Shri Babu Lal, relative of Shri C.L. Pal who was one of the members of the Selection Committee and that nothing has been found proved in the enquiry report against the petitioner. Referring to Annexure-3 it is urged that the Government framed Rules on 9.7.1998 with regard to appointment of Class III employees. In the said Rules preference is to be given to the candidates under sports quota wherein different category of marks are provided i.e. 5 marks to International Players, 4 marks to National Players, 3 marks to State Level Players and 2 marks to the University or College Level Players. 11. It is stated that petitioners were college level players and are entitled to the marks of sports quota for college players. As such the action of the respondents in deducting the marks awarded to the petitioner in respect of their sports certificate is wholly illegal, arbitrary and bad in law. It is urged that fresh selections held by the respondents in pursuance of the order dated 20.4.2002 of the State Government without assigning any reason or justification is wholly illegal, as the rules have been given prospective and not retrospective effect. 12. The fresh interview which was proposed to be held in pursuance of the letters dated 11.4.2001 and 20.4.2001 was stayed by this Court vide order dated 16.5.2001. After hearing the Counsels and perusal of the record I find that during the enquiry, the certificates in respect of the petitioners were found to be genuine and valid, as such, there is no irregularity or infirmity in the selection of the petitioners, as well as the respondents cannot cancel the selection of the petitioners without any cogent reasons in violation of principles of natural justice. Since neither any irregularity nor any infirmity was found in the Enquiry Committee by the Enquiry Officer, the petitioners having already been selected being qualified, there was no occasion to hold any fresh interview. The order dated 20.4.2001 was passed without affording any opportunity to the petitioners though their selections as Class III employees was in accordance with the procedure provided under the Rules and there was no justification for amending the rules or deduction of the marks allotted to sportsman on certificate. The Rules having been given prospective effect cannot be made applicable retrospective as such the action of the respondents are wholly arbitrary and illegal and cannot be sustained. 13. For the reasons stated above the writ petitions are allowed. The order dated 20.4.2001 appended as Annexure 2 to the writ petition is quashed. The consequences of selection of the petitioners is to follow. No order as to costs. Petitions Allowed. ———