Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1080 (MP)

Omwati v. State of M. P.

2007-10-04

S.K.GANGELE

body2007
ORDER 1. Because similar facts and common question with regard to cancellation of selection of Patwaris involved in Writ Petitions No.4274/07 [Jitendra Singh and others v. State of M.P. and others]; 4282/07 [Bhagwanlal Sharma and others v. State of M.P. and others]; 4342/07 [Nisar Mohammad and others v. State of M.P. and others]; 4455/07 [Rekhraj Arya v. State of M.P. and others], including the present petition, hence all the petitions have been heard together and are being decided by this common order. For the purpose of facts, the facts of Writ Petition No.4308 of 2007 have been taken into consideration. 2. The Collector Sheopur vide a notification, copy of which has been filed as Annexure P-7, advertised seventy seven posts for Patwaris for selection for Patwari training. Out of aforesaid posts, eight posts were reserved for scheduled castes candidates, nine for OBC candidates and sixty for general category candidates. It was mentioned in the notification that selection of candidates shall be made on the basis of merit and written examination. For the purpose of written examination there would be a question paper of 200 marks and duration of examination would be three hours. All the questions will be in objective form and will carry one mark for each question. Total eight subjects had been notified for composition of question paper. In pursuance to the aforesaid notification near about 861 candidates applied for appearing in the examination and 801 candidates appeared in the written examination which was held on 24.12.2006. The result of the examination was declared on 26.12.2006. Accordingly, seventy seven candidates had been selected and eleven candidates kept in waiting list. Total seventy five selected candidates filed the present petitions. The selected candidates were sent on training at Patwari Training Centre, Morena. They joined training on 2.1.2007 and completed training on 31.8.2007 at Training Centre, Morena. Thereafter, they were directed to complete another three months training at Collectorate, district Sheopur. Thereafter, vide order dated 3.9.2007 the selection of the petitioners have been cancelled on the ground that on large scale illegalities were committed during selection of the petitioners. 3. The respondents in the return have stated that after publication of final selection list of Patwaris number of complaints received by the authorities and there was a wide-spread agitation amongst public. In news papers also reports were published that there was a corruption in the selection process. 3. The respondents in the return have stated that after publication of final selection list of Patwaris number of complaints received by the authorities and there was a wide-spread agitation amongst public. In news papers also reports were published that there was a corruption in the selection process. The marks of the candidates have been changed, at the instance of the Collector the answer-sheets were revalued and most of the selected candidates had been favoured. Copies of the news papers have also been filed alongwith the return. As per the news paper cuttings there was a wide-spread agitation at Sheopur against the selection by the candidates and allegations have been levelled against the process of selection and subsequently in valuation of answer-sheets. 4. Initially, thirty seven persons were assigned the duty to examine the answer sheets of the candidates. Commissioner, Land Records conducted an enquiry in pursuance to the letter written by the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Bhopal. He submitted his report to the Principal Secretary on 16.5.2007. In his report he specifically mentioned that the marks of the answer sheets of the candidates had been changed on the ground of revaluation. Marks of some candidates had been enhanced and marks of some candidates had been reduced. At last he found that there was no revaluation order by any competent authority. There were also irregularities with regard to accepting the forms from the candidates who were not eligible because they were not residents of district Sheopur. The candidates also did not have the requisite qualification of computer training. Subsequently, he submitted another proposal on 6.6.2007 and in his proposal he stated that there was wide scale forgery in the selection process; the answer sheets of the candidates had been revalued without any order of any competent authority and also applications of the candidates accepted, who were not entitled to participate in the process of selection because they had no proper domicile certificate or certificate in computer training. The Commissioner, Land Record examined earlier valuers i.e. Smt. Vijay Laxmi Saxena, Mr. R.P. Mudgal, Mr. Y.K. Gautam, Mr. G.S. Ashawat, Mr. B.S. Gupta, Mr. Ashok Kumar Khandelwal, Mr. K.C. Goyal, Mr. Harishanker Garg, Mr. Mataprasad Piparaiya, Mr. R.K. Sharma, Mr. P.S. Meena, Mr. Ashok Kumar Garg, Mr. Sitaram Adiwasi, Mr. Shailendra Singh Rajput, Mr. Purushottam Goud, Mr. K.C. Gupta, Mr. Ramnaresh Sharma, Mr. S.S. Kushwaha, Mr. Karnlesh Puri, Mr. R.P. Mudgal, Mr. Y.K. Gautam, Mr. G.S. Ashawat, Mr. B.S. Gupta, Mr. Ashok Kumar Khandelwal, Mr. K.C. Goyal, Mr. Harishanker Garg, Mr. Mataprasad Piparaiya, Mr. R.K. Sharma, Mr. P.S. Meena, Mr. Ashok Kumar Garg, Mr. Sitaram Adiwasi, Mr. Shailendra Singh Rajput, Mr. Purushottam Goud, Mr. K.C. Gupta, Mr. Ramnaresh Sharma, Mr. S.S. Kushwaha, Mr. Karnlesh Puri, Mr. Harful Gurjar, Ramsunder Sharma and Ashok Kumar Bansal. These were the persons who had been initially appointed for valuation of answer sheets of the candidates. All the aforesaid persons stated that they valued the answer sheets and awarded correct marks on the basis of model answer paper. Thereafter under revaluation those marks were changed subsequently in the answer sheets and in some cases marks were enhanced and in some cases marks were reduced but there were no signatures on the answer sheets as to who revalued the answer sheets and who awarded the changed marks. These facts have been mentioned on the basis of record produced by the Government on the request of the Court. These facts have not been mentioned by the respondents in the return. 5. In the mean while the Collector of district Sheopur was changed and newly posted Collector, Mr. Shobhit Jain vide order dated 28th June 2007 appointed seven members committee to again examine the answer sheets. The committee examined the answer sheets and found that there were changes in the marks and there were over writings and manipulations in the answer sheets with regard to allotment of marks. Subsequently, he also appointed a Deputy Collector to inquire into the matter. The Deputy Collector submitted detailed report and also mentioned details with regard to change in marks. The report has been filed as Annexure R-6. It is clear from the aforesaid report that Mr. Shahid Mohammad who earlier received 112 marks got 124 marks after revaluation. Similarly, Mr. Arvind Singh who earlier got 131 marks after revaluation got only 65 marks; Mr. Ashok Kumar who earlier got 135 marks had got only 80 marks. Similarly, Om.kar Singh, who got earlier 137 marks after revaluation got only 53 marks. Likewise, the marks have also been enhanced of the selected candidates. The roll numbers of general category candidates whose marks have been enhanced have been mentioned by the Collector in the order dated 3.9.2007. Similarly, the marks of OBC category candidates and scheduled caste candidates have also been enhanced. Likewise, the marks have also been enhanced of the selected candidates. The roll numbers of general category candidates whose marks have been enhanced have been mentioned by the Collector in the order dated 3.9.2007. Similarly, the marks of OBC category candidates and scheduled caste candidates have also been enhanced. Over all, the Collector had found on the basis of enquiry that out of 77 selected 59 candidates were not entitled for selection because of changes in marks and not having proper certificates in computer training and also not having proper domicile certificates and on the ground of not having domicile certificate four candidates and on the ground of not having proper certificate in computer training five candidates total 59 candidates were not entitled for selection. Apart from this, it has further been noticed by the Collector that marks of 174 candidates had been reduced. On the basis of above findings the Collector vide the impugned order has specifically observed that over writings and manipulations was so intense in the answer sheets that it was not possible to find out innocent candidates, there was also illegality in acceptance of forms from the candidates who did not have the valid domicile certificates and certificate of computer training and decided to cancel the whole selection and consequently the whole selection has been cancelled. 6. Learned senior counsel and other counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners have not been given proper opportunity of hearing by the authorities before cancellation of their selection, proper documents have not been supplied to the petitioners, neither a show cause notice was issued to the petitioners. It has further been submitted that the petitioners have completed eight months' training and after completion of training they acquired a right to be appointed as Patwari's and that right cannot be taken away without adopting the due procedure of law. In support of their contentions learned counsels relied upon the judgments in Mamta Soni (Smt.) v. State of M.P. and 4 others [2001(1) MPJR SN3]; State Bank of India and others v. D.C. Aggarwal and another [ AIR 1993 SC 1197 ]; Union of India and others v. Kali Dass Batish and another [(2005)1 SCC 779] and Inderpreet Singh Kahlon and others v. State of Punjab and others [ (2006)11 SCC 356 ]. 7. 7. Contrary to this the learned Government Advocate has submitted that there were wide-spread irregularities in the selection of Patwari's. The forms of the candidates who were not entitled for appearing in the examination were accepted and answer sheets without any order of the competent authority had been revalued and numbers of candidates who were selected have been enhanced and number of near about 170 candidates have been reduced. There are no signatures of the persons who revalued the answer sheets, hence the candidates were selected on the basis of forgery and malpractices and that has been found proved in the enquiry. Some of the affected candidates have also been given opportunity of hearing. It was not possible for the authorities, looking to the large scale irregularities, to find out the innocent candidates, hence in public interest it has been decided to cancel the whole selection. The petitioners have not been appointed as Patwari's. In such circumstances they have no right to claim opportunity of hearing. In support of contention learned Government Advocate has relied upon the cases in State of U.P. and others v. Rajkumar Sharma and others [ (2006)3 SCC 330 (paras 12, 14 and 16)]; Union of India and others v. Kali Das Batish and another [ (2006)1 SCC 779 ], Mohd. Sartaj and another v. State of U.P. and others [ (2006)2 SCC 315 (para 19)]; State of A.P. and others v. D. Datagiri and others [ (2003)5 SCC 373 ]; S. Renuka and others v. State of A.P. and another [ (2002)5 SCC 195 ]; Krishan Yadav and another v. State of Haryana and others [ (1994)4 SCC 165 ], and Inderpreet Singh Kahlon and others v.State of Punjab and others [ (2006) 11 SCC 356 ]. 8. The undisputed facts of the case are that after publication of final result of Patwari examination there was a wide-spread agitation at district Sheopur. The news papers published reports with regard to illegalities in the selection of the candidates and the candidates who participated in the selection have also complained that there were wide-spread illegalities and most of the persons have been favoured by the then Collector. There were allegations that select list was prepared at the residence of Collector. Authorities received illegal gratifications. The news papers published reports with regard to illegalities in the selection of the candidates and the candidates who participated in the selection have also complained that there were wide-spread illegalities and most of the persons have been favoured by the then Collector. There were allegations that select list was prepared at the residence of Collector. Authorities received illegal gratifications. On the directions of Principal Secretary (Revenue) the Commissioner, Land Record, Shri Shailendra Singh submitted two reports as mentioned earlier in the order and he found that the numbers of some of the selected candidates have been enhanced although there was no mention in the answer sheets that who had revalued I the answer sheets and who passed the orders with regard to revaluation and also numbers of some of the candidates have been reduced on the basis of revaluation. He also noticed that some of the candidates who had been selected did not have the valid domicile certificates nor had the requisite certificate in computer training. He had also recorded the statements of number of teachers who had initially been assigned the duties of valuation of the answer sheets and all the persons stated that subsequently in the answer sheets the marks had been changed. In his proposal he submitted that the candidates were favoured unduly by the authorities. Thereafter, the Collector constituted a committee again for re-examining the answer sheets and he also appointed one Deputy Collector to conduct further enquiry and specifically prepared a fresh list of candidates with regard to whom the marks had been enhanced or the marks had been reduced. The committee noted that the marks of near about 174 candidates had been reduced and the marks of near about 36 selected candidates had been enhanced. A complete list has been filed along with the return as Annexure R-6. On the basis of the illegalities the Collector mentioned that near about 59 selected candidates were not entitled for selection. Their names and details have been mentioned in the order dated 3.9.2007, copy of which has been filed as Annexure R-9. Apart from this, the Collector in the aforesaid order cancelling the selection has also mentioned that over-writings and manipulations of some of the answer sheets were so intense that it was not possible to identify the correct numbers of the candidates. In such circumstances, he cancelled the entire selection. Apart from this, the Collector in the aforesaid order cancelling the selection has also mentioned that over-writings and manipulations of some of the answer sheets were so intense that it was not possible to identify the correct numbers of the candidates. In such circumstances, he cancelled the entire selection. He also noted that 69 candidates had been given opportunity of hearing by issuing show cause notices. It is admitted fact that all the candidates have not been appointed as Patwari's so far. They have only been admitted for Patwari training at their own expenses. 9. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Union Territory of Chandigarh v. Dilbagh Singh and others, reported in (1993) 1 SCC 154 , has held as under with regard to cancellation of selection of candidates on the ground of preparation of select list in unfair and injudicious manner: "12. If we have regard to the above enunciation that a candidate who finds a place in the select list as a candidate selected for appointment to a civil post, does not acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed in such post in the absence of any specific rule entitling him for such appointment and he could be aggrieved by his non-appointment only when the Administration does so either arbitrarily or for no bona fide reasons, it follows as a necessary concomitant that such candidate even if has a legitimate expectation of being appointed in such posts due to his name finding a place in the select list of candidates, cannot claim to have a right to be heard before such select list is cancelled for bona fide and valid reasons and not arbitrarily. In the instant case, when the Chandigarh Administration which received the complaints about the unfair and injudicious manner in which select list of candidates for appointment as conductors in CTU was prepared by the Selection Board constituted for the purpose, found those complaints to be well founded on an enquiry got made in that regard, we are unable to find that the Chandigarh Administration had acted either arbitrarily or without bona fide and valid reasons in cancelling such dubious select list. Hence, the contentions of the learned counsel for the respondents as to the sustainability of the judgment of CAT under appeal on the ground of non-affording of an opportunity of hearing to the respondents (candidates in the select list) is a misconceived one and is consequently rejected." Hon 'ble the Supreme Court has further held as under in Krishan Yadav and another v. State of Haryana and others, reported in (1994)4 SCC 165 : "Public offices, both big and small, are sacred trust. Such offices are meant for use and not abuse. In this case fraud has reached its crescendo. The acts were motivated by extraneous considerations. From a Minister to a menial everyone has been dishonest to gain undue advantages. The whole examination and the interview have turned out, to be farcical exhibiting base character of those who have been responsible for this sordid episode. It shocks the Court's conscience to come across such a systematic fraud. The High Court was not justified in taking the path of least resistance stating, in view of the destruction of records, that it was helpless. It should have helped itself. Law is not that powerless. (Paras 16, 17 and 19) In the above circumstances the only proper course open is to set aside the entire selection. The plea that Innocent candidates should not be penalised for the misdeeds of others cannot be accepted. When the entire selection is stinking, conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit, individual innocence has no place as "fraud unravels everything". The entire selection is arbitrary. It is that which is faulted and not the individual candidates. Accordingly, the selection of all Taxation Inspectors is set aside." The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under in Hanuman Prasad and others v. Union of India and another, reported in (1996)10 SCC 742 : "4. It is then contended that though the selected candidates have no vested right, they had got a legitimate expectation for appointment when they were selected for being appointed. They should be given prior opportunity and also know the reasons for cancellation. In support of this contention, he placed reliance on para 8 of the judgment of this Court in Asha Kaul v. State of J & K, reported in (1993)2 SCC 573 . They should be given prior opportunity and also know the reasons for cancellation. In support of this contention, he placed reliance on para 8 of the judgment of this Court in Asha Kaul v. State of J & K, reported in (1993)2 SCC 573 . It is unexceptionable that when duly constituted selection committee makes recommendation for appointment of the selected candidates, the candidates do not get any vested right or legitimate expectation until they are appointed according to the Rules; they have a chance to be appointed as they have been selected by the recruitment agency. In that case, the Government had cancelled the select list without any reasons. This Court has laid the above rule in that backdrop. The ratio therein has no application for the reason that after the perusal of the report submitted by the investigating agency, the competent authority had cancelled the selection so that the regular and proper examination could be conducted giving opportunity to everyone in a fair manner. No prior opportunity need be given in the case of mass copying. It is not the case where a named candidate committed copying. Accordingly, we do not find any illegality in the order passed by the Tribunal." Hon'ble the Supreme Court has further held as under in Union of India and others v. Anand Kumar Pandey and others, reported in (1994)5 SCC 663 : "9. This Court has repeatedly held that the rules of natural justice cannot be put in a strait-jacket. Applicability of these rules depends upon the facts and circumstances relating to each particular given situation. Out of the total candidates who appeared in the written test at the centre concerned only 35 candidates qualified the test. In that situation the action of the railway authorities in directing the 35 candidates of centre No.115 to appear in a fresh written examination virtually amounts to cancelling the result of the said centre. Although it would have been fair to call upon all the candidates who appeared from centre No.115 to take the written examination again but in the facts and circumstances of this case no fault can be found with the action of the railway authorities in calling upon 35 (empanelled candidates) to take the examination afresh. The purpose of a competitive examination is to select the most suitable candidates for appointment to public services. The purpose of a competitive examination is to select the most suitable candidates for appointment to public services. It is entirely different than an examination held by a college or university to award degrees to the candidates appearing at the examination. Even if a candidate is selected he may still be not appointed for a justifiable reason. In the present case the railway authorities have rightly refused to make appointments on the basis of the written examination wherein unfair means were adopted by the candidates. No candidate had been debarred or disqualified from taking the exam. To make sure that the deserving candidates are selected the respondents have been asked to go through the process of written examination once again. We are of the view that there is no violation of the rules of natural justice in any manner in the facts and circumstances of this case." In Union of India and others v. Rajesh P. U,. Puthuvalnikathu and another, reported in (2003)7 SCC 285 , the Hon'ble Court has held as under: "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-pervasive 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 candidate whose selections were not found to be, in any manner, vitiated for anyone or the other reasons. Applying a unilaterally rigid and arbitrary standard to cancel the entirety of the selections IS nothing but total disregard of relevancies, giving a complete go-by to contextual consideration throwing to the winds the principle of proportionality in going father than what was strictly and reasonably to meet the situation." The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the absence of any specific or categorical findings supported by any concrete and relevant material that widespread infirmities of an all-pervasive nature, which could be really said to have underminated 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 or anyone or the other reasons. But, the facts of the present case are different. Hon'ble the Supreme Court further in Inderpreet Singh Kahlon and others v. State of Punjab and others, reported in (2006)11 SCC 356 , has held as under: "Before a finding that an appointment has been made in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution can be arrived at, the appointing authority must take into consideration the foundational facts. Only when such foundational fact are established, can the legal principles be applied. When the services of employees are terminated inter alia on the ground that they might have aided and abetted corruption and, thus, either for the sake of probity in governance or in public interest their services should be terminated, the Court must satisfy itself that conditions therefor exist. The Court while setting aside a selection may require the State to establish that the process was so tainted that the entire selection process is liable to be cancelled. In a case of this nature, thus, the question which requires serious consideration is as to whether due to the misdeed of some candidates, honest and meritorious candidates should also suffer. (Paras 40, 58 and 59) A distinction exists between a proven case of mass cheating for a board examination and an unproven imputed charge of corruption where the appointment of a civil servant is involved. (Paras 40, 58 and 59) A distinction exists between a proven case of mass cheating for a board examination and an unproven imputed charge of corruption where the appointment of a civil servant is involved. Only in the event it is found to be impossible or highly improbable that the tainted cases can be separated from the non-tainted cases could on masse orders of termination be issued. Both the State Government as also the High Court in that view of the matter should have made all endeavours to segregate the tained from the non-tainted candidates." (Paras 46, 50 and 51) 10. Hence, on the basis of the above principle of law laid down by Hon 'ble Supreme Court and the facts of the present case, it is clear that the selection of Patwari's has rightly been cancelled by the Collector because there are specific or categorical findings supported by concrete and relevant materials that there were widespread infirmities of all pervasive nature. It under-mines the basis of selection in its entity and it was impossible to weed out the beneficiaries. The answer sheets have also been produced by the respondents before this Court and after examining the answer sheets the change in the numbers in some of the answer sheets and over-writings are so intensed that it is impossible to find out the correct. Apart from this, it is a fact that the petitioners have not been selected as Patwari's. They have only completed training of Patwari for eight months at their own expenses. Apart from this, from the facts, this Court has gathered an impression that most of the petitioners are beneficiaries of illegal acts of the officers. Their marks have been enhanced and marks of some candidates have been reduced in order to select the favoured candidates. In such circumstances active involvement or participation of most of the petitioners in the illegality cannot be ruled out. 11. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Aligarh Muslim University and others v. Mansoor Ali Khan, reported in (2000)7 SCC 529 , has held as under with regard to applicability of rule of natural justice, the same has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in (2007)1 SCC 331 : "24. The principle that in additional to breach of natural justice, prejudice must also be proved has been developed in several cases. The principle that in additional to breach of natural justice, prejudice must also be proved has been developed in several cases. In KL Tripathi v. State Bank of India, reported in (1984) 1 SCC 43 , Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. (as he then was) also laid down the principle that not mere violation of natural justice but de facto prejudice (other than non-issue of notice) had to be proved. It was observed, quoting Wade's Administrative Law (5th Ed., pp 472-75), as follows: (See p.58, para 3) "(I)t is not possible to lay down rigid rules as to when the principles of natural Justice are to apply, nor as to their scope and extent ... there must also have been some real prejudice to the complainant, there is no such thing as a merely technical infringement of natural justice. The requirements of natural justice must depend on the facts and circumstances, of the case, the nature of the inquiry, the rules under which the Tribunal is acting, the subject-matter to be dealt with, and so forth." Since then, this Court has consistently applied the principle of prejudice in several cases. The above ruling and various other rulings taking the same view have been exhaustively referred to in State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma, reported in (1996)3 SCC 364 . In that case, the principle of "prejudice" has been further elaborated. The same principle has been reiterated again in Rajendra Singh v. State of M.P .[ (1996)5 SCC 460 ]. 25. The "useless formality" theory, it must be noted, is an exception. Apart from the class of cases of "admitted or indisputable facts leading only to one conclusion" referred to above, there has been considerable debate on the application of that theory in other cases. The divergent view expressed in regard to this theory have been elaborately considered by this Court in M.C. Mehta [ (1999)6 SCC 237 ], referred to above. This Court surveyed the views expressed in various judgments in England by Lord Reid, Lord Wilberforce, Lord Woolf, Lord Bingham, Megarry, J. and Straughton, L.J. etc. in various cases and also views expressed by leading writers like Profs. Gamer, Craig, de Smith, Wade, D.H. Clark etc. Some of them have said that orders passed in violation must always be quashed for otherwise the Court will be prejudging the issue. in various cases and also views expressed by leading writers like Profs. Gamer, Craig, de Smith, Wade, D.H. Clark etc. Some of them have said that orders passed in violation must always be quashed for otherwise the Court will be prejudging the issue. Some others have said that there is no such absolute rule and prejudice must be shown. Yet, some others have applied via media rules. We do not think it necessary in this case to go deeper into these issues. In the ultimate analysis, it may depend on the facts of a particular case. 26. It will be sufficient, for the purpose of the case of Mr. Mansoor Ali Khan to show that his case will fall within the exceptions stated by Chjinnappa Reddy, 1. in S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan [ (1980)4 SCC 379 ], namely, that on the admitted or indisputable facts, only one view is possible. In that event no prejudice can be said to have been caused to Mr. Mansoor Ali Khan though notice has not been issued." 12. In the present petitions some of the candidates have been served show cause notices. Apart from this, in my opinion, from the proved facts it is established that there were widespread illegalities in the selection process. In such circumstances the principle of rule of natural justice can be waived because the petitioners have not been selected as Patwari's. 13. Consequently, I do not find any merits in these petitions. They are hereby dismissed. No order as to cost. 14. Before parting with the case some disturbing features have come to notice of this Court. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department vide order dated 10.9.2007, copy of which has been filed as Annexure P-7, informed the Commissioner, Land Record that the Government decided to cancel the Patwari selection of district Sheopur and it was also ordered that a criminal case be registered against the officers and employees who were responsible. The Commissioner, Land Record in his letter dated 24.5.2007 specifically mentioned that criminal action be also taken against the candidates who have been benefited by manipulations of marks in the answer sheets because their involvement cannot be ruled out. In spite of that no action has been taken by the Government. It is the duty of the. The Commissioner, Land Record in his letter dated 24.5.2007 specifically mentioned that criminal action be also taken against the candidates who have been benefited by manipulations of marks in the answer sheets because their involvement cannot be ruled out. In spite of that no action has been taken by the Government. It is the duty of the. Government to ensure proper action against the erring officers and the beneficiaries in order to maintain purity of administration and also for the purpose that in future such type of irregularities may not happen. This Court sincerely hopes that a serious efforts be made as soon as possible by the authorities in this direction. A copy of this order be sent to the Chief Secretary and Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Bhopal.