ORDER J.K. Maheshwari, J. 1. This order shall govern disposal of W.P. Nos. 2164/06(S) and 4432/05(S). 2. Both these petitions have been filed challenging the action of the Respondents to hold re-examination for Patwari selection on 6-11-2005 without passing any order of cancellation of the earlier examination and selection list. However, prayer is made to uphold the first selection list published on 24-10-2005 and to quash the subsequent selection list dated 7-11-2005. Consequential further relief has also been prayed for. 3. It is the case of the Petitioners that Respondent No. 4 has published an advertisement Annexure-P/1 to fill up the 22 posts of Patwaris in District Neemuch. The last date of submission of the application form was 8-10-2004. As per the advertisement, selection was based on the written test which was conducted by Respondent No. 4. As per advertisement, the question paper was consisting of two parts; first part consist with subjects Mathematics, Hindi, Gramin Artha Babyasta, Gramin Samajik Byabastha, Krushi Panchayat Baybastha and the second part with computer. 4. Petitioners have submitted their application forms for such selection pursuant to the advertisement. Admission card were issued as per Annexure-P/2 indicating the fact that the examination shall be held on 23-10-2005. Petitioner had appeared in the examination and duly selected by the selection list published on 24-10-2005 Annexure-P/3. Their names were found place at Serial No. 1 and 3 in the merit list of the candidates of un-reserved category. In the selection list, total fourteen persons have been placed in the main list of un-reserved male and fourteen persons in that waiting list. Seven candidates got selected in the main list un-reserved female and seven candidates in waiting list. One candidate was in the selected list of S.C. Category and one is of waiting list. After due selection, Petitioners were waiting for orders of their training, but in the meantime a fresh examination has been held on 6-11-2005 without passing an order to cancel the earlier examination, and selection list Annexure-P/3. Petitioners have also not been intimated about such cancellation and to hold fresh examination on 6-11-2005. However, it is urged that holding a fresh examination, without cancelling the earlier examination is arbitrary, illegal and unreasonable. 5. Petitioners have also not been intimated about such cancellation and to hold fresh examination on 6-11-2005. However, it is urged that holding a fresh examination, without cancelling the earlier examination is arbitrary, illegal and unreasonable. 5. It is further a case of the Petitioner that in any case, if the fresh examination was to be held, then prior to cancellation of earlier examination selected candidates ought to have been furnished a notice to show-cause and an opportunity of hearing while holding inquiry in the matter of cancellation of earlier examination. Respondents have cancelled the list of first selection, arbitrarily, on the whims and caprice, and on the instigation of one M.L.A.; which is arbitrary. 6. It is further submitted by the Petitioners that in a subsequent select list, various candidates who could not get even minimum marks have been selected and such action is only to give undue benefit to some relatives of the M.L.A., Dilip Singh Parihar. It is said in ground No. 6.11 that one Narendra Singh secured 177 marks in the subsequent examination, though he could get only 39 marks in the earlier examination. Shri Papu Chouhan, who could get 47 marks in the earlier examination got selected in the subsequent examination. Shri Mahendra Singh Sisodia, who is the near relative of the M.L.A. could get 43 marks in the earlier examination, but found place in the subsequent selection. Shri Narendra has also secured 43 marks in the earlier examination, but placed in the subsequent selection list by acquiring 159 marks. Similarly, Sihivraj Tomar could get 33 marks in the earlier examination, but selected in the subsequent selection list. However, it is urged that the entire action of the Respondent was arbitrary, discriminatory contrary to the rules and ignoring the principle of natural justice, which is in violation of the fundamental right guarantee conferred to them under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 7. It is also a case that when the Petitioners have approached to the Respondent, then they have communicated with letter dated 27-10-2005 Annexure-P/5 indicating the fact that in the earlier examination, certain irregularities were found, therefore, that examination has been cancelled. A fresh examination has already been held on 6-11-2005 consisting with the paper of 200 marks. The question paper was of objective type and not of multiple choice. A fresh examination has already been held on 6-11-2005 consisting with the paper of 200 marks. The question paper was of objective type and not of multiple choice. Petitioners have not received such letter from the Respondent prior to holding the examination on 6-11-2005. However, it is urged that no order of cancellation can be passed without hearing selected candidates. Thus, it is urged that subsequent selection, without prior intimation is arbitrary, unreasonable and affecting the rights of the Petitioners. 8. Respondents have filed their reply on 8-3-2006, wherein it is set forth that because some complaints were published in the newspapers, indicating procedural irregularity, in conducting the earlier examination, however, after making an inquiry, the Collector has cancelled such examination as per law and rules. It is said that Collector is fully competent to cancel such examination. It is further said that, thereafter re-examination was held by giving prior information to all eligible candidates, and a select list has been published on 7-11-2005. Thus, candidates, who got declared successful in the subsequent selection have been sent for training which is going on. In such circumstances, the relief as prayed in the present petition cannot be granted. It is further urged that the challenge of the subsequent examination is based on is afterthought and to grant relief in favour of the Petitioner's interest of various other candidates cannot be put in jeopardy. It is further said that, so far as the earlier examination is concerned, some of the candidates have made their complaint to the Hon'ble Chief Minister, Local M.L.As. and Commissioner, Ujjain Division, Ujjain as per Annexure-R/2. They have taken the cognizance on such complaints and the Collector has directed to the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayat, Neemuch to hold an inquiry regarding such complaint. The inquiry officer has submitted his inquiry report on the same date i.e. 26-10-2005 as per Annexure-R/3 and on consideration of the inquiry report, the Collector has cancelled the said examination vide undated letter Annexure-R/6. It is said, while holding examination pursuant to advertisement dated 14-9-2004, the new instruction dated 29-8-2005, were not duly notified to the candidates, therefore, the appearing candidates were having some doubts. Under such circumstances, the order as passed by the Collector, Neemuch for cancellation of the examination and for holding fresh examination is in accordance with the rules and under his competence. Under such circumstances, the order as passed by the Collector, Neemuch for cancellation of the examination and for holding fresh examination is in accordance with the rules and under his competence. In view of the above, it is urged that, no illegality or irregularities have been committed, therefore, interference by this Court is not permissible. It is further said that prior to the fresh examination, a news item was published in the newspaper and the fresh admit cards were issued to the candidates by the ordinary post. Various candidates have been appeared in the examination and after such examination, a fresh selection list has been issued as per Annexure-R/8. Petitioner has not appeared in the subsequent examination, therefore, filing of this petition by the Petitioners challenging the subsequent selection does not call for any interference by this Court. 9. Petitioners have filed the rejoinder and it is said that as per the contents of the return, it is contended that the action has been taken on the basis of a complaint received from the Office of the Chief Minister and M.L.A. concerned, although such letter of the Chief Minister was issued on 7-11-2005 prior to the same, the entire examination was cancelled and a fresh selection list has been published. It is urged that the entire action has been taken on the instigation of the M.L.A., because he has written the letter dated 25-10-2005 Annexure-R/2, to the Chief Minister. At the same time, under the instigation of the M.L.A. concerned because their near relatives have not been selected in the first selection list. The Collector has written a letter on 26-10-2005 to the Chief Executive Officer and received a report on the same date and the communication letter Annexure-R/4 dated 27-10-2005 has been issued to the Commissioner, Land Records with respect to cancellation of the examination, although no order of cancellation of such examination is either on the note sheet or by passing an order, through the Collector, relying the report of C.E.O. of Zilla Panchayat. Once the order of cancellation of first selection has not been validly passed, by the Respondent No. 4; holding the fresh examination on 6-11-2005 without intimation to the Petitioner is arbitrary, unreasonable and against the principle of natural justice. 10. Once the order of cancellation of first selection has not been validly passed, by the Respondent No. 4; holding the fresh examination on 6-11-2005 without intimation to the Petitioner is arbitrary, unreasonable and against the principle of natural justice. 10. Thereafter, Respondents have filed their reply to the rejoinder, wherein it is said that because prior to receiving the information from the Office of the Chief Minister, the entire action was taken by the Respondent No. 4, therefore, the allegation as alleged by the Petitioner is ill-founded and do not deserve consideration by this Court. 11. While hearing the case, and by seeing the deviation of the stand taken by the Respondent in their return and in additional return, this Court has directed on 22-7-2006 to produce the record of the cancellation of the earlier examination and to hold the subsequent examination. Pursuant to such direction, the relevant record has been produced before the Court. 12. I have heard Learned Counsel appearing for the parties and also perused the record. On perusal of the record, it is apparent that an advertisement Annexure-P/1 was issued on 14-9-2004 for selection of 22 posts of Patwaris. The last date of submission of the application form was 8-10-2004. Total 771 application forms were found proper, however, the call letters were issued to 771 candidates for the examination, held on 23-10-2005. Out of them, 669 candidates had appeared and 102 candidates were absent. Pursuant to such selection, a select list Annexure-P/3 was published on 24-10-2005, wherein the name of the Petitioners have been found place in the selection list. After publication of such selection list on 25-10-2005, M.L.A., Neemuch, Dilipsingh Parihar has written a letter to then Chief Minister Shri Babulal Gaur. The contents of the letter of the M.L.A. is reproduced as under: 13. Along with this letter, a complaint which was made to the M.L.A. has also enclosed along with Annexure-R/2. The Collector, Neemuch by its own vide letter dated 26-10-2005 addressed to the Chief Executive Officer, District Panchayat, Neemuch instructed to hold an inquiry and to submit his report. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayat Neemuch has submitted his report on 26-10-2005 wherein it is said that as per the instruction dated 29-8-2005, the examination paper must be of 200 marks and of three hours with objective type questions. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayat Neemuch has submitted his report on 26-10-2005 wherein it is said that as per the instruction dated 29-8-2005, the examination paper must be of 200 marks and of three hours with objective type questions. Such instruction was not furnished to the candidates, however, the examination which was held for 200 marks within three hours duration is not proper, at the same time, it is also said that some questions were not of objective type and the answers of some of the questions were more than one, therefore, recommendation was made for cancellation of first examination. 14. On the basis of such report, Collector has written a letter on 27-10-2005 to the Commissioner, Land Record as per Annexure-R/4. In that letter, it has been mentioned that an inquiry was held on the complaint made with respect to the Patwaris selection dated 23-10-2005, and as per recommendation, made in inquiry report, the selection has been cancelled. It is further mentioned that the fresh examination be commenced on 6-11-2005, which shall consist with one paper of 200 marks and three hours duration. Such papers shall be objective type and not of multiple choice or multi optional. The extract of the letter of the Collector, Neemuch is reproduced hereinbelow: 15. It is seen from the record, for subsequent examination, the call letters were issued to only 669 candidates, who had appeared in the earlier selection list. 112 remaining candidates have not been intimated. The dispatch date of those call letter is 28-10-2005, by ordinary post. The examination has been held on 6-11-2005, after eight days of such dispatch, without care, to see, whether, call letters have been received by the candidates or not. On the basis of such examination, the fresh select list Annexure-R/8 has been published by the Respondent No. 4. It is said that all the candidates were intimated and those who have appeared in the subsequent examination and secured the marks in that examination have been selected by the list Annexure-R/8. 16. During the course of hearing, as directed the question papers of the earlier examination as well as subsequent examination has been produced along with the list of documents. On going through both the question papers, it is apparent that the question papers of the earlier examination is of objective type and the question paper of the subsequent examination is of multiple choice/multi-optional. 17. On going through both the question papers, it is apparent that the question papers of the earlier examination is of objective type and the question paper of the subsequent examination is of multiple choice/multi-optional. 17. From the record, it is seen that at the time of advertisement, instruction issued Annexure-R/1, were in existence and on the basis of which the advertisement Annexure-P/1 was issued. The relevant extract of such instructions is reproduced herein below: 18. Thereafter, a subsequent instruction dated 29-8-2005, which is relied upon in the report Annexure-R/3 are also required to be reproduced: 19. The Chief Executive of the Zilla Panchayat, Neemuch has recorded the findings on three points, which are as under: 20. While recording the findings of the aforesaid three issues, it is said that as per the advertisement, the question papers must be of 100 marks; although while holding the examination, it was of 200 marks. It is further said that the answer of some of the questions were synonymous. At the same time, correct answers of some of the questions were not only one, but multiple, however, it is recommended in the inquiry that the examination, which was held in 23-10-2005 was not in conformity with the instruction dated 29-8-2005. 21. At the same time, I have gone through the note sheets, which is available on record. The relevant extract of those note sheets are reproduced hereinbelow: 22. On going through the record, and after consideration of the complete record produced before this Court, it does not reveal that Collector, Neemuch has passed any order either on the note sheet or in the form of order for cancellation of the earlier examination or selection list. On going through the available record, recommendation of the inquiry, held by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayat, Neemuch has never been accepted by passing any order on due application of mind, by the Collector, District Neemuch. The note sheet, written by the clerk concerned, is merely to approve the letters drafted for intimation to the Commissioner, Land Records, The Commissioner, Ujjain Division, Ujjain, The Dy. Commissioner, Land Records, Ujjain and the press note. The note sheet, written by the clerk concerned, is merely to approve the letters drafted for intimation to the Commissioner, Land Records, The Commissioner, Ujjain Division, Ujjain, The Dy. Commissioner, Land Records, Ujjain and the press note. Thus, it is to be concluded here that the competent authority, i.e. Collector has not passed any order for cancellation of the earlier examination and selection list and to hold the fresh examination by applying its mind on the recommendations of the report of the Chief Examination Officer, Zilla Panchayat, Neemuch. In such circumstances, it is to be held, that, no order of cancellation of the earlier examination and the selection list has been passed by the competent authority. 23. Now, it is to be seen, "whether holding a subsequent examination was based on the sufficient reasons/plausible reasonings or not". As per advertisement dated 14-9-2004, the question paper ought to be 100 marks, but, it was of 200 marks and of three hours duration, in the earlier selection. The C.E.O. Zilla Panchayat, Neemuch in his report, recorded the finding that deviation from the above condition of advertisement was not communicated to the candidates, therefore, the candidates were having doubt in their mind while appearing in earlier selection process. From the record produced before us, it is apparent that neither at the time of earlier selection nor at the time of subsequent selection, such intimation was furnished to the candidates, either by issuing the letter or by publishing a corrigendum communicating this fact; that the question paper shall be of 200 mark and of three hours duration. It is also seen from the record that in the earlier selection, the question paper was objective type and in a subsequent examination, it was multi-optional or multiple choice. On going through the question paper of the earlier examination, it does not reveal that any of the question was subjective in nature. Both the question papers were of 200 marks and three hour duration. On the other hand, despite the letter Annexure-R/6 filed by the Respondent, the subsequent question paper was of multiple choice or multi-optional; though it must be objective type. 24. It is not the case of Respondents that the question papers of earlier selection was leaked out, or during examination mass copying done by the students. On the other hand, despite the letter Annexure-R/6 filed by the Respondent, the subsequent question paper was of multiple choice or multi-optional; though it must be objective type. 24. It is not the case of Respondents that the question papers of earlier selection was leaked out, or during examination mass copying done by the students. It is also not the case in which the unreasonable marks were given to the selectees of first selection list. Thus, on fact, the recommendation made of C.E.O. Zilla Panchayat, Neemuch for cancellation of earlier examination and select list, is not based on the findings, which are necessary for cancellation of the examination or the process of selection. 25. In the present case, one MLA, Dillipsingh Parihar has written a letter addressing to the then Chief Minister, Shri Babulal Gaur on 25-10-2005 a day after, of publishing the first selection list. In that letter, it was complained that, there was a possibility to leak out the paper and due to this reason, 200 marks out of 200 may have been allotted to some of the selected candidates and for these reasons, inquiry was asked for by the MLA. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayat, Neemuch has not upheld those allegation, but concluded his inquiry in an ex parte manner. He recorded the findings that, communication of the question paper of 200 marks three hours duration was not with the examinees. It is also said in his report, that, some questions were more than one answer or synonymous answer. As I have already held that, such findings are not plausible/sufficient to cancel a process of selection. 26. At the same time, in para 6.11 of the petition, it is specifically averred that in the first selection, some of the candidates could not secure the minimum marks, but selected in the subsequent selection. Those averments have not been replied by the Respondent. However, such averments shall be deemed to be admitted. By these facts, it is apparent that some of the relatives of the MLA, Dillipsingh Parihar could not get selected in the first selection and in the subsequent selection, those persons found place. The same MLA had made the complaint to the Chief Minister. However, such averments shall be deemed to be admitted. By these facts, it is apparent that some of the relatives of the MLA, Dillipsingh Parihar could not get selected in the first selection and in the subsequent selection, those persons found place. The same MLA had made the complaint to the Chief Minister. From the note sheet, it is apparent that after cancellation of the examination and after holding a fresh selection, by way of subsequent examination, the relatives of the MLA have been selected and sent for training. After completing the entire process of cancellation of first selection and publishing of subsequent selection list, the intimation was sent to the Chief Minister as well as to the MLA concerned in compliance to their complaint and letter. The aforesaid sequal of facts, apparently indicates that the cancellation of the earlier selection for the reasons as specified in the report, cannot be said to be proper. The process of selection and the selection list can only be cancelled if there was a severe irregularities like leaking out of the papers, mass copying, giving undue marks to some of the persons etc., otherwise cancellation of process of selection for the reasons as specified in the report cannot be said to be plausible reasons of cancellation of the selection process. 27. One more aspect is also be required to be taken note off here; as per the instructions dated 24-5-2004 and 29-8-2005 issued by the Commissioner, Land Records on the basis of which the entire process of selection has taken place. In which, the Collector is the competent for issuing the advertisement, preparation of the question papers, valuation of the answers sheets and preparation of the selection list. The discretion was conferred on him to hold the examination either at one centre or various centres. One more discretion is vested with the Collector to hold two examinations if the number of candidates are more in comparison to the vacancies. Otherwise, Collector is not vested with the power to direct his subordinate for holding an inquiry in the process of selection. In the present case, when some news cutting were published thereon, the Collector, Neemuch has instructed to his subordinate on 26-10-2005 to hold an inquiry in the matter. Otherwise, Collector is not vested with the power to direct his subordinate for holding an inquiry in the process of selection. In the present case, when some news cutting were published thereon, the Collector, Neemuch has instructed to his subordinate on 26-10-2005 to hold an inquiry in the matter. The subordinate of the Collector, CEO Zilla Panchayat, Neemuch has submitted his report on the same date 26-10-2005 and relying on such report, letters for cancellation of the earlier selection process has been issued by the Office. It prima facie reveals that such action of obtaining report from his subordinate by the Collector is not required under the instructions of the CLR. If same irregularities, have came to his knowledge, then he may seek instructions from Commissioner Land Record itself. But, without taking such recourse, he has taken the recourse, which can only termed as arbitrary and unreasonable. 28. From the record, it further reveals that as per the subsequent instruction dated 29-8-2005, the examination was to be held prior to 30th November, 2005. Once the earlier selection was cancelled hurriedly on 26/27-10-2005, and immediate within ten days, the subsequent examination was held by the Collector although he was having ample time to hold a subsequent examination by the end of November, 2005. Counsel for Petitioner submits that this was done only to give undue favour to the relatives of the then MLA on whose persuasion earlier process of selection was put into question by the Collector. 29. From the record, it is apparent that the call letters for the candidates were issued on 28-10-2005 as per the dispatch register. The examination for subsequent examination was held on 6-11-2005 although such examination may be held by giving a reasonable time and by sending the call letters by registered post to those candidates, but this process has not been adopted by the Collector while holding the subsequent selection. In such circumstances, it is to be held that the entire process of subsequent selection as completed by Collector, Neemuch is on account of his arbitrary action without passing any order either on the note sheet or by a order for cancelling the same. 30. However, it is to be held, the report has been obtained due to oblique intention, which is not supported by plausible reasons and sufficient to cancel the process of selection. 30. However, it is to be held, the report has been obtained due to oblique intention, which is not supported by plausible reasons and sufficient to cancel the process of selection. In other way, from the record, it is apparent that there was an indulgence of one MLA, Dillipsingh Parihar on whose persuasion, the process of selection of earlier examination was set at naught by the Collector and to give result to him, without passing any order of cancellation of earlier examination and select list, subsequent process of selection has been completed, implemented so hurriedly. 31. In view of the foregoing discussion, it is to be held that the reasons on which the earlier examination and selection list has been set at nought are without plausible reasoning, which is not sufficient for cancellation of selection process. At the same time, hurriedly the subsequent selection process has been concluded without notice to the selected candidates of earlier examination and without calling them for subsequent selection. In such circumstances, once the first selection was not cancelled holding of subsequent selection by the Collector cannot be said to be valid, but more so in view of the foregoing reasons, it is to be held that the action of the Collector, Neemuch to hold the subsequent selection is arbitrary and based on extraneous consideration. 32. During the course of hearing, it is intimated to the Court that out of first selection list, eight candidates have been selected in the subsequent process of selection. However, the selection of these eight candidates, shall remain unaffected and the selection of remaining other candidates in subsequent selection is hereby set aside. 33. Counsel for Respondent has drawn the attention to the Court that on account of cancellation of the subsequent selection, various candidates who are necessary the party in the present petition and to the proceeding may be adversely affected, therefore, the selection of those candidates cannot be cancelled who are not party to the proceeding in the present case. 34. I have given the serious thought on the contention of the counsel for the Respondent. From the facts of the present case as discussed hereinabove, it is apparent that no order of cancellation of earlier examination or the select list has been passed by the Respondents. 34. I have given the serious thought on the contention of the counsel for the Respondent. From the facts of the present case as discussed hereinabove, it is apparent that no order of cancellation of earlier examination or the select list has been passed by the Respondents. Without passing any order of cancellation of the earlier examination and select list, Respondents cannot held the subsequent examination and to issue subsequent select list. Therefore, the action of the Respondent to hold the subsequent selection itself is illegal. However, the subsequent selectees cannot be said to be necessary party for the present case. In the facts of the present case, guidance may be taken from the judgments of the Supreme Court. This question has been dealt with by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderbad and another vs. A.V.R. Siddhantti and others, 1974 (4) SCC 335 . The Hon'ble Supreme Court has under: 15. As regards the second objection, it is to be noted that the decisions of the Railway Board impugned in the writ petition contain administrative rules of general application, regulating absorption in permanent departments, fixation of seniority, pay etc. of the employees of the erstwhile Grain Shop Departments. The Respondents-Petitioners are impeaching the validity of those policy decisions on the ground of their being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The proceedings are analogous to those in which the constitutionality of a statutory rule regulating seniority of Government servant is assailed. In such proceedings the necessary parties to be impleaded are those against whom the relief is sought, and in whose absence no effective decision can be rendered by the Court. In the present case, the relief is claimed only against the Railway which has been impleaded through its representative. No list order fixing seniority of the Petitioners vis-a-vis particular individuals, pursuant to the impugned decisions, is being challenged. The employees who were likely to be affected as a result of the re-adjustment of the Petitioner's seniority in accordance with the principles laid down in the Board's decision of October 16, 1952, were at the most proper parties and not necessary parties, and their non-joinder could be fatal to the writ petition. 35. The employees who were likely to be affected as a result of the re-adjustment of the Petitioner's seniority in accordance with the principles laid down in the Board's decision of October 16, 1952, were at the most proper parties and not necessary parties, and their non-joinder could be fatal to the writ petition. 35. This question has also been dealt with by Hon'ble Supreme Court in subsequent judgment in V.P. Shrivastava and others vs. State of M.P. and others, 1997 (7) SCC 759. 14. The conclusion of the Tribunal that non-inclusion of the affected parties is fatal to the applicants' case is also unsustainable in law. It is to be stated that the Appellants do not challenge the so-called ad hoc appointments of the promotee Respondents but they do challenge the position of the said ad hoc promotee Respondents over the Appellants in the seniority list. In other words the very principle of "determination of seniority" made by the State Government is under challenge and for such a case State is the necessary party who has been impleaded. It has been held by this Court in the case of G.M., South Central Rly. vs. AVR Siddhantti (SCC pp. 341-42, para 15). 36. Taking assistance of aforesaid judgment of Supreme Court and also taking note of the facts of present case, that, the policy decision taken by the Collector for subsequent examination without passing an order of earlier examination was itself null and void for the reasons aforementioned. In such circumstances, the State Government is the only necessary party and the subsequent selectees cannot be said to be necessary party in the present case. 37. In view of the foregoing discussion, both these petitions are allowed. Earlier examination held on 23-3-2005 and the selected list issued on 24-10-2005 is upheld. Subsequent selection and the subsequent select list dated 6-11-2005 and 7-11-2005 are hereby quashed. It is further directed that, if the subsequent selectees are undergoing training, their training be forthwith stopped and the earlier selectees by the list dated 24-10-2005 be sent for training. Both these petitions are allowed with the above direction. In the facts of the present case, there is no order as to costs. Petition allowed