JUDGMENT Hon’ble A.P. Sahi, J.—This writ petition is an offshoot of a challenge to the selections of class-IV employees in the office of the learned Advocate General and the Government Advocate at Allahabad. The 14 petitioners, in this writ petition, are out of the 50 selected candidates, whose services have been terminated on account of the judgment delivered by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1200 of 2006 on 9.3.2006. The respondent No. 4 was petitioner No. 1 in the aforesaid writ petition and has been impleaded as Respondent herein by this Court’s order dated 13.12.2006. The other respondents namely 5 to 8 and 11 are also similarly situate but they were not parties to Writ Petition No. 1200 of 2006. Respondent Nos. 9 and 10 had qualified in the written examinations but they failed to appear in the interview. 2. The challenge is, that the order impugned dated 10.4.2006 terminating the services of the petitioners which has now been brought on record by way of an amendment application, is an order passed without disclosing any valid reasons and indicating the irregularities which had warranted the cancellation of the appointments and, as such, it is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners allege that there is absolutely no discrepancy in their selections and the statement given by the learned Advocate General before the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 1200 of 2006 was not founded on any material. It is contended that the petitioners were not made parties to the said writ petition and the judgment was delivered merely on the concessional statement made by the then learned Additional Advocate General and the proceedings were terminated as no further orders were required to be passed in the said writ petition. It is alleged, that the judgment indicates that a decision was taken by the learned Advocate General to cancel the entire selections, but in effect there was no such decision by the learned Advocate General and the impugned order of termination clearly recites that the services are being terminated on account of the judgment of this Court. It is alleged, that the judgment indicates that a decision was taken by the learned Advocate General to cancel the entire selections, but in effect there was no such decision by the learned Advocate General and the impugned order of termination clearly recites that the services are being terminated on account of the judgment of this Court. It is alleged that the issue as to whether the selections were vitiated or not was not adjudicated at all and even otherwise the affected parties including the petitioners were never put to notice about the said proceedings nor were they impleaded as parties when the judgment was delivered on 9.3.2006. The order dated 6.3.2006 passed in Writ Petition No. 1200 of 2006 was a prima facie opinion and not a conclusive opinion. No Affidavit was filed as per the said order and as such the observations contained therein are not an adjudication which could be made the basis of cancellation. While passing final orders on 9.3.2006, this Court did not adjudicate the issue and an assessment was made on the basis of prima facie material without holding any proper enquiry and without any opportunity to the petitioners to rebut the same. 3. It is further urged that the judgment dated 9.11.2005 in the case of Sanjeev Sharma, as referred to in the judgment dated 9.3.2006, has absolutely no application or bearing on the rights of the applicant and, therefore, there was absolutely no basis existing in law as well as any fact for cancelling the appointment of the petitioners. Even otherwise the impugned orders are in violation of principles of natural justice as no notice or opportunity was given to the petitioners prior to the passing of the impugned order and, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. Some other grounds have also been raised which shall be discussed in the judgment later on but broadly the challenge is that there was no occasion for having terminated the services of the applicant as there was no such direction by this Court to that effect. 4. This matter was heard on several occasions and the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were called upon to file their Affidavits. 4. This matter was heard on several occasions and the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were called upon to file their Affidavits. Apart from this, the nature of the allegations were such that required an enquiry into the facts in order to find out as to whether there was any element of irregularity and if so of what magnitude in order to warrant the cancellation of the entire selections. The Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 delayed the filing of the Affidavits and, as such, vide order dated 2.8.2006, this Court entrusted the task of submitting a fact finding report in respect of the allegations made to a Committee consisting of Sri Shyamal Narain, Sri K.R. Singh and Sri R.B. Pradhan, Advocates. The report was submitted and in between an Impleadment Application was filed by Respondent Nos. 4 to 11 who brought on record certain documents relating to the selection proceedings and the preparation of the select list. A copy of the said impleadment Application which was filed by the Respondent Nos. 4 to 11 containing the said contents were also served on the learned Chief Standing Counsel and the State was called upon to answer the same. A reply to the said Affidavit was filed and the Committee also submitted its report on 15.3.2007 which has been taken on record. Thereafter, Affidavits were exchanged and objections were also filed in respect of the said report. 5. On an earlier occasion in the present proceedings, an objection had been raised with regard to the petition being entertained in view of the judgment rendered by this Court on 9.3.2006. It was suggested on behalf of the Respondent - State that since the matter has been decided and concluded by the said judgment, this Court should not proceed to entertain this writ petition. The issue had been examined by me and an order had been passed on 26.7.2006, which is quoted herein below : “Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Chandra Shekhar Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, who has sought adjournment in the matter on behalf of Sri S.M.A. Kazmi, learned Advocate General, who is out of station, and therefore prays that the matter be taken on 1st August, 2006. This matter has been adjourned on several occasions on the request of the opposite parties. This matter has been adjourned on several occasions on the request of the opposite parties. In spite of several adjournments a short counter-affidavit has been filed without bringing the details of the reasons on record, which let to the cancellation of the examination. So far as the question of maintainability of the writ petition by the petitioners is concerned this Court is clearly of the view that they were not parties to the previous litigation, therefore, the writ petition is very much maintainable and their rights cannot be taken away by an order passed either on concession or with the consent of the parties to the previous litigation. Accordingly, as a last opportunity, the learned Advocate General is granted time till 1st August, 2006 to file a detailed counter-affidavit bringing on record the reasons for cancelling the examinations in order to maintain transparency. It is the right of the petitioners to know the reasons for the action of any order, which is taken by the respondents. To do justice between the parties, it is necessary for this Court also to know the reasons for the action taken in order to test the same on the anvil of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners can only raise their grievances only if correct facts are brought on record and the Court shall only then be able to assess the case either way. In the event the information is withheld, the Court might have to draw an adverse inference. For this it is necessary that the Affidavit may be filed by the next date fixed. It is made clear that no further time shall be granted and the matter shall not be adjourned on any ground.” 6. In the aforesaid background, the matter has been heard and the learned Counsel for the parties have agreed for a final disposal of the petition under the Rules of the Court. 7. I have heard Sri Shyamal Narain, learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional Advocate General Sri Zafar Naiyer assisted by Sri Chandra Shekhar Singh, Addl. Chief Standing Counsel, for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, Sri Amit Shukla for the Respondent Nos. 4 to 11 and Sri Nand Lal Maurya for the intervener Lal Chand whose impleadment application has not been allowed but he has been heard under Chapter XXII Rule 5-A of the Allahabad High Court Rules. 8. Chief Standing Counsel, for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, Sri Amit Shukla for the Respondent Nos. 4 to 11 and Sri Nand Lal Maurya for the intervener Lal Chand whose impleadment application has not been allowed but he has been heard under Chapter XXII Rule 5-A of the Allahabad High Court Rules. 8. The facts shorn of details, are that vide order dated 17.5.2005, 104 class-IV posts were created by the State Government in the scale of Rs. 2250-3200. Out of these 104 posts, 58 were allocated to the office of the Advocate General at Lucknow and 46 at the Allahabad High Court. This petition primarily concerns the selections against the said 46 posts which were advertised on 22.6.2005 for Allahabad. The interviews were proposed to be held on 20.6.2005 which could not be held and later on notices were issued for written examination on 17.8.2005 calling upon the candidates to appear in the written examination which was ultimately held on 3.9.2005. Against the said holding of examinations and selections, writ petitions were filed by the daily wagers in the case of Sanjeev Sharma and others (supra) which was ultimately dismissed on 9.11.2005 and a copy of the judgment is Annexure-5 to the writ petition. In between the results of these selections were declared on 22.10.2005 and thereafter appointments proceeded which were again challenged in a Writ Petition No. 1200 of 2006, Vivek Kumar and others v. State of U.P., giving rise to the judgment dated 9.3.2006. It appears that during the pendency of the said petition, orders were passed therein on 21.1.2006 to the following effect : “On the request of learned Additional Advocate General, put up on 3rd March, 2006. It is understood that no further adjournment shall be granted. Answer-sheets of all the candidates, shall be produced before this Court positively on the next date fixed.” 9. Thereafter it appears that some answer-sheets were produced in Court and on the basis of four answer-sheets that were perused by the Court, the following observations were made as contained in the order dated 6.3.2006 quoted below : “From the answer sheet of Roll Nos. 655 (Amar Bahadur Yadav), 386 (Azad Kumar), 446 (Anil Kumar) and 960 (Vishnu Kumar), this Court is prima facie satisfied that there has been tempering/manipulations in the process of selection (details are not being recorded at this stage). 655 (Amar Bahadur Yadav), 386 (Azad Kumar), 446 (Anil Kumar) and 960 (Vishnu Kumar), this Court is prima facie satisfied that there has been tempering/manipulations in the process of selection (details are not being recorded at this stage). It is therefore appropriate to direct the Standing Counsel to file an Affidavit of any of the Law Officer involved in the process of selection, in respect of following : (a) who had examined the answer-sheet. If there were more than one examiner, names of all of them shall be disclosed. (b) Whether the examiners prepared a tabulation chart in respect of the candidates examined or not. If such tabulation chart was prepared, the same shall also be enclosed. Such an Affidavit must be filed on Thursday i.e. 9.3.2006. Put up for further hearing on Thursday i.e. 9.3.2006.” 10. It is undisputed that the present petitioners were not parties to the said writ petition. No Affidavit on behalf of the respondents appears to have been filed as per the direction dated 6.3.2006. The said writ petition was disposed of by a short order dated 9.3.2006, which is quoted herein below : “Heard Sri Amit Shukla, Advocate on behalf of petitioner and Sri S.M.A. Qazmi, learned Additional Advocate General, on behalf of respondents. With reference to the order passed by this Court dated 6th March, 2006, Sri S.M.A. Qazmi, learned Additional Advocate General has appeared on behalf of respondents today. He states that in view of the irregularities noticed by this Court in its order dated 6th March, 2006, as also in view of the irregularities, which has crept in the process of selection (having regard to the judgment of this Court dated 9th November, 2005 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 46588 of 2005; Sanjeev Sharma and another v. State of U.P. and others, and other connected writ petitions), the Advocate General of the State of Uttar Pradesh has taken a decision to cancel the entire selections held for Class-IV posts in the office of the Advocate General as well as in the office of Government Advocate at Allahabad, and appropriate orders in that regard shall be issued at the earliest, in any case, within three weeks from today. It is further stated that till fresh regular selections are made in accordance with Rules on Class-IV posts, appointment on daily wage basis shall be offered to the employees, who were working earlier prior to the said selection at the first instance. After all such ex-employees are accommodated, fresh engagement of daily wagers shall be made. It is further stated that the process of selection shall be started de nova and every effort shall be made for a new Selection Committee being constituted. In view of the statement so made on behalf of Additional Advocate General, no further orders are required to be passed in the present writ petition. With the aforesaid, the present writ petition is disposed of finally.” 11. The petitioners, who had been selected out of a list of 262 candidates in the written examinations, were appointed and they started functioning and received salary. However, all the petitioners continued only up to 12.4.2006 where after they were called upon to stop working w.e.f. 13.4.2006. It is at this stage that the present writ petition was filed alleging that no termination order were served on them nor there was any occasion to discontinue the petitioners and, as such, the relief claimed was that the petitioners should be allowed to continue on their post and consequential benefits be also awarded to them. 12. During the pendency of the writ petition, the State at a very highly belated stage in the year 2007, filed an Affidavit bringing on record an order emanating from the Advocate General’s Office dated 10.4.2006, whereby the services of the petitioners and all other similarly situated employees were terminated. This order dated 10.4.2006 has been challenged by way of an Amendment Application dated 19.4.2007 which was allowed by the Court and the matter was proceeded thereafter. 13. As indicated above, this Court had already called upon a report to be submitted by a 3 Member Committee and a report dated 15.3.2007 has been brought on record, which is quoted herein below : “REPORT OF THE INQUIRY COMMITTEE APPOINTED BY HON’BLE A.P. SAHI, ‘J’ FOR INQUIRING INTO THE CONDUCT OF THE SELECTION TEST HELD FOR MAKING APPOINTMENTS ON CLASS-IV POSTS IN THE OFFICE OF THE ADVOCATE GENERAL/GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE AT ALLAHABAD. In Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 24620 of 2006 District-Allahabad Km. In Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 24620 of 2006 District-Allahabad Km. Hemalata and others ...........Petitioners Versus State of U.P. and others .........Respondents In the course of the proceedings of the aforesaid Writ Petition, Hon’ble A.P. Sahi, ‘J’ was pleased to constitute and appoint a three-member Inquiry Committee comprising of the following as its Members : 1. Sri R.B. Pradhan, Advocate (Standing Counsel). 2. Sri K.R. Singh, Advocate (Standing Counsel); and 3. Sri Shyamal Narain, Advocate. The terms of reference given to the aforesaid Inquiry Committee was to go through all the answer-scripts and other documents pertaining to the selection test and submit a report regarding such irregularities, anomalies and discrepancies as might be detected or found in the conduct of the selection test leading to the finalization of the select list and, thereafter, appointments made against the class-IV posts in question. METHODOLOGY ADOPTED BY THE INQUIRY COMMITTEE (i) Scrutiny of marks awarded on each answer-script to determine whether the list of 263 candidates declared successful in the written segment of the selection test was in order. That is, to specifically examine whether all the candidates declared pass in the written segment had indeed secured the minimum prescribed marks (viz. 20) in each of the two sections of the written test, and also, to ascertain whether any such candidates who had secured the minimum pass-marks in both the sections had escaped getting included in the list of candidates declared successful in the written test. (ii) After conducting the scrutiny as indicated above, prepare a list of such candidates who had either wrongly been included in the list of candidates declared successful at the written test, or wrongly been excluded there from. (iii) Compute the total marks secured by each of the candidates declared successful at the written test by adding the marks awarded to such candidates in the interview. (iv) Prepare a general or combined merit list of all candidates, irrespective of reservations. (v) Compare the aforesaid combined merit list with the category-wise list of successful candidates supplied to the inquiry Committee i.e., list of general candidates, list of O.B.C. candidates, list of S.C. candidates and list of candidates placed in the waiting list, the purpose being to determine whether any candidate had either wrongly been included in, or wrongly been excluded from, the final select list of fifty candidates. (vi) The Committee, while undertaking the aforesaid exercise had also concerned itself with looking for any discrepancy such as, overwriting, cutting etc., which may create any doubts or suspicions regarding tampering with answer scripts. (vii) Since, even as the Inquiry Committee was engaged in the above exercise, an impleadment application was moved in the writ petition alleging that certain candidates had been allowed to appear in the interview even through they had failed in the second part of the written test, the Inquiry Committee went back to specially taking up for scrutiny the answer scripts of those candidates, whose details had been given in the said impleadment application. (vide Para 9 of the affidavit accompanying the same). FINDINGS OF THE INQUIRY COMMITTEE (I) Upon scrutiny of the answer scripts of all candidates, the Inquiry Committee has found that the following candidates had passed in both sections of the written test but their names were not included in the list of 263 candidates declared successful at the written examination. SI.No. NAMES ROLL NO. MARKS TOTAL IN BOTH MARKS SECTIONS 1. Mohd. Sarfaraz Ansari 1292 44+27 71 2. Santosh Kr. Srimali 519 44+21 65 3. Dinesh Kumar 1320 42+22 64 4. Ahmed Ali Ansari 1308 42+20 62 5. Dharmendra Kumar Singh Yadav 1304 36+20 56 6. Indrajeet Kumar 1020 26+30 56 7. Shiv Kumar Paswan 866 24+20 44 8. Girja Shankar Dwivedi 534 36+20 56 The Committee, however, was also informed that out of the candidates mentioned above, Mohd. Sarfaraz Ansari, Ahmed Ali Ansari, Shiv Kumar Paswan and Girja Shankar Dwivedi had been excluded on the ground of non-deposit of the examination fee. (II) Further, upon scrutiny of the answer scripts of all the candidates, the Inquiry Committee found that the following candidates had failed in the second part of the written test but still their names had been included and shown in the list of 263 candidates, declared successful at the written examination. SI.No. NAMES ROLL NO. MARKS TOTAL IN BOTH MARKS SECTIONS 1. Azad Kumar 386 28+14 42 2. Anil Kumar 446 38+12 50 3. Amar Bahadur Yadav 655 34+10 44 4. Vishnu Verma 960 30+50 35 Out of the above, the answer script of Vishnu Verma (Roll No. 960) reveals that even though he has secured 5 marks in the second section of the written test, the marks entered are 25 (instead of 5). Anil Kumar 446 38+12 50 3. Amar Bahadur Yadav 655 34+10 44 4. Vishnu Verma 960 30+50 35 Out of the above, the answer script of Vishnu Verma (Roll No. 960) reveals that even though he has secured 5 marks in the second section of the written test, the marks entered are 25 (instead of 5). Also, out of the above mentioned four candidates, only Vishnu Verma’s name finds place in the final select list of 50 successful candidates, whereas the remaining 3 have not been short listed for appointment. (Ill) As regards the roll numbers mentioned in para 9 of the Affidavit, filed in support of the Impleadment Application, the Inquiry Committee, upon re-scrutiny found that the marks as per the answer scripts were as follows : SLNO. ROLL NO. MARKS REMARKS 1. 2 38+26 (not 38+12, as alleged) 2. 14 36+23 (not 26+9, as alleged) 3. 16 36+26 (not 36+17, as alleged) 4. 36 40+27 (not 32+12, as alleged) 5. 59 38+29 (not 40+18, as alleged) 6. 115 34+23 (not 34+08, as alleged) 7. 117 34+27 (not 34+11, as alleged) 8. 119 38+26 (not 42+17, as alleged) 9. 125 40+22 (not 46+15, as alleged) 10. 136 32+27 (not 48+18, as alleged) 11. 150 38+29 (not 34+11, as alleged) 12. 137 32+28 (not 20+13, as alleged) 13. 324 36+24 (not 40+13, as alleged) 14. 386 28+14 (As per allegation) 15. 446 38+12 (As per allegation) 16. 479 36+28 (not 42+11, as alleged) 17. 543 36+30 (not 42+02, as alleged) 18. 655 34+10 (As per allegation) 19. 960 30+05 (As per allegation) (IV) The Inquiry Committee also categorically records that no such tabulation chart or cross-list, as annexed to the impleadment application, or any other tabulation chart was made available to the Committee. (V) Now, coming to the separate category wise list of selected candidates, as supplied to the Inquiry Committee, in respect of General category, OBC, SC and Wait-listed candidates, the Committee found that : (a) in the General Category, the highest aggregate of marks secured by any candidate was 105 (Naseemuddin, Roll No. 125), and the aggregate of marks secured by the lowest ranking selected candidate was 95 (Ashwani Kumar Vishwakarma). Vishnu Verma (Roll No. 960) was also shown as selected with an aggregate of 95 marks, but, as already pointed out above, this candidate had actually failed in the written test and should not have been included in the list of candidates declared successful at the written examination. (b) in the OBC category, the highest aggregate of marks secured by any selected candidate was 94 (Satya Pal, Roll No. 441 and Gauri Shankar, Roll No. 886), and the aggregate of marks secured by the lowest ranking selected candidate was 90 (Ram Chandra Yadav, Roll No. 1063). (c) in the SC category, the highest aggregate of marks secured by any selected candidate was 89 (Shyam Babu, Roll No. 02, Sunil Kumar, Roll No. 1166, Satish Kumar Gautam, Roll No. 972 and Dilip Kumar, Roll No. 1377), and the aggregate of marks secured by the lowest ranking selected candidate was 86 (Ashish Kumar Kannaujia, Roll No. 842). (d) in the Wait-listed category, comprising 09 candidates, the highest aggregate of marks secured by any candidate was 104 (Ashutosh Kumar Mishra, Roll No. 294), and the lowest aggregate of marks secured by any candidate was 82 (Sachin Kumar Yadav, Roll No. 185). As per the information made available to the Inquiry Committee, four candidates from the waiting list were finally appointed and their particulars are as follows : 1. Ashutosh Kumar Mishra, Roll No. 294 - 104 marks (36+22+46); 2. Mohd. Abid Raza, Roll No. 1361 - 93 marks (40+20+33); 3. Ramesh Chandra Mishra, Roll No. 414 - 92 marks (44+27+21); and 4. Bharat Chandra Rawat, Roll No. 37 - 89 marks (34+21+34). The particulars of the remaining five candidates, shown in the wait-listed category, are as follows : (a) Abhishek Singh Chauhan, Roll No. 1431 - 92 marks (32+20+40) (b) Udai Pratap Singh, Roll No. 306 - 86 marks (46+25+15) (c) Ravi Kumar Kannaujiya, Roll No. 78 - 85 marks (48+21+16) (d) Sachin Kumar Yadav, Roll No. 185 - 82 marks (42+20+20) (e) Lal Chand, Roll No. 87-A - 84 marks (28+20+36). Since the caste status of the candidates in the wait-listed category was not known to the Inquiry Committee, it is not possible for the Committee to determine whether the four candidates, who were finally appointed from the wait-list, should have been appointed in the order in which they were actually appointed. Since the caste status of the candidates in the wait-listed category was not known to the Inquiry Committee, it is not possible for the Committee to determine whether the four candidates, who were finally appointed from the wait-list, should have been appointed in the order in which they were actually appointed. If the caste status or reservation component is ignored, then the top four scorers in the wait listed category would be Ashutosh Kumar Mishra, Mohd. Abid Raza, Ramesh Chandra Mishra and Abhishek Singh Chauhan (and not Bharat Chandra Rawat, who had secured 89 marks i.e., fewer marks than Abhishek Singh Chauhan). The Inquiry Committee, on the basis of the aforesaid lists and scrutiny of marks, has noted that one Mohd. Aneesuddin (Roll No. 56), who had secured an aggregate of 98 marks (46+42+10), does not figure in the list of selected candidates, even though the aggregate of the last selected candidate in the general category list is 95 (i.e. lower than that of Mohd. Aneesuddin). It also deserves to be pointed out that Ashutosh Kumar Mishra, Roll No. 294, who has aggregated 104 marks (36+22+46), was not included in the general category list of selected candidates but, instead, placed in the waiting list, even though he had secured the second highest aggregate amongst all the selected candidates. Apart from what is noted herein above, no other discrepancies or anomalies have been noticed by the Inquiry Committee. Further, it needs to be recorded that the Committee has not been informed whether any minimum qualifying marks had been prescribed with regard to interview (as in the case of the written segment of the examination), and therefore, all computations have been done taking into account the aggregate of marks secured by the candidates in the written test and the interview. The aforesaid report is hereby submitted to the Hon’ble Court by the undersigned Members of the Inquiry Committee. (R.B. PRADHAN) (K.R. SINGH) (SHYAMAL NARAIN) Advocate Advocate Advocate Dated : 15th March, 2007.” 14. The aforesaid report is hereby submitted to the Hon’ble Court by the undersigned Members of the Inquiry Committee. (R.B. PRADHAN) (K.R. SINGH) (SHYAMAL NARAIN) Advocate Advocate Advocate Dated : 15th March, 2007.” 14. After having perused the entire material as indicated herein above, the question that arises for consideration is as to what would be the impact of the judgment dated 9.3.2006 on the rights of the parties, as to whether there were such serious irregularities which would warrant the cancellation of the entire selections, as to whether the reason disclosed in the impugned order dated 10.4.2006 is well founded in law and in fact and finally as to whether the termination orders are invalid for the grounds already raised in the writ petition. 15. Learned Counsel for the petitioners Sri Shyamal Narain has urged that there was no material before the Advocate General at all so as to warrant making of a statement before the learned single Judge that there were large scale serious irregularities. It is urged that no such exercise were undertaken either by the learned Advocate general or by any other Agency to find out the nature and extent of the irregularities for cancelling the selections. He contends that a mere concession on the part of the learned Additional Advocate General before the Court without there being any material disclosed or adjudicated was absolutely unwarranted. He contends that the concession of a Counsel cannot take away the rights of third parties who were not even impleaded and put to notice in the said proceedings. It is urged that the claim of the petitioners was seriously prejudiced and affected and, therefore, neither the petitioners therein nor the State was justified in seeking a relief to annul their appointments on the basis of the alleged irregularities which directly affected the petitioners. Even otherwise, this Court did not choose to put the petitioners to notice and, therefore, there has been a serious failure of the observance of the principles of natural justice. The basis for assuming the irregularities to be sufficient to cancel the selections ought to have been made known to the petitioners and the petitioners should have been permitted to contest the same before passing an order that has resulted in cancellation of the petitioners’ appointment. The basis for assuming the irregularities to be sufficient to cancel the selections ought to have been made known to the petitioners and the petitioners should have been permitted to contest the same before passing an order that has resulted in cancellation of the petitioners’ appointment. Sri Shyamal Narain has urged that even assuming for the sake of arguments that there were some irregularities, it was not open to the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to have cancelled the entire selections, when the discrepancies and irregularities could have been individually identified. Relying on several decisions Sri Shyamal Narain has urged that there has been a complete failure of justice and the orders of termination are, therefore, liable to be set aside which now stands substantiated from the report of the enquiry Committee dated 15.3.2007. 16. In response, the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have urged that since there was a satisfaction recorded as expressed by the then Additional Advocate General before the Court that there were serious irregularities, and since the Court had also summoned some of the answer-books to establish the same, therefore, there is no scope for any further adjudication of the matter and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. The Respondent Nos. 4 to 11 through their Impleadment Application have brought on record a cross list which they alleged has been deliberately misplaced by the office of the Advocate General and which discloses the fact that some of the candidates who are seeking impleadment had been selected yet their names did not find place in the final select list. Sri Amit Shukla has urged that the entire selections are vitiated as irregularities have been attempted to facilitate the engagement of some favoured candidates. 17. Having heard learned Counsels for the parties, it appears that the order dated 6.3.2006, after recording a prima facie satisfaction on a perusal of 4 answer-sheets, observed that there was some tampering/manipulations in the selections and, therefore, without recording any details at that stage called upon the learned Standing Counsel to get an affidavit filed through some Law Officer in respect of the details sought therein. The Court wanted information about the names of the examiners and the tabulation chart, if any, prepared by them after examining the answer-books. 18. The Court wanted information about the names of the examiners and the tabulation chart, if any, prepared by them after examining the answer-books. 18. The said order nowhere finally draws any conclusion about the alleged irregularities and simply records a prima facie observation with a direction to the State to file an Affidavit bringing forth further information as desired therein. The Court cannot be presumed to have expressed any final opinion or judgment in the order dated 6.3.2006 as it was itself not firm about its prima facie conclusions and wanted further information to confirm its doubts about the alleged large scale irregularities in the selections. A prima facie satisfaction cannot be said to be a final opinion. 19. The order dated 6.3.2006 nowhere directs the cancellation of the selections. The recital in the order dated 10.4.2006, therefore, is an incorrect basis, wrongly treating the order dated 6.3.2006 to be a direction for cancellation. There was no order to the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to obey any direction, as in fact, there was no such direction. The Court did not call upon the respondents therein to comply with any direction to cancel the selection. The matter was to come up for further hearing on 9.3.2006 and for filing of an Affidavit by the respondents. 20. As is evident from the records no Affidavit on behalf of the State or the Advocate General was filed in the said petition. The Court did not wait any further and proceeded to record the order without there being any Affidavit on behalf of the respondents nor does the order dated 9.3.2006 indicate or reveal any details about the alleged irregularities or the satisfaction of the Advocate General being founded on any specific material or reasons. 21. The petitioners herein had no knowledge about any evidence either being disclosed, discussed or assessed by this Court in the earlier case decided on 9.3.2006. The State or its authorities also did not put the petitioners to any notice on this score nor did it provide opportunity to the petitioners in the matter. Thus, neither the Court nor the employer can be said to have rendered its opinion after putting the petitioners to notice. Accordingly, this Court finds that the petitioners were non-suited without any opportunity which has prejudiced their claim. Thus, neither the Court nor the employer can be said to have rendered its opinion after putting the petitioners to notice. Accordingly, this Court finds that the petitioners were non-suited without any opportunity which has prejudiced their claim. The petitioners could have very well demonstrated their stand and also the fairness in selections had they been given the opportunity. 22. A perusal of the 3 Member Committee report indicates some infirmities and discrepancies which are almost identified in respect of particular candidates. There is no finding in respect of the petitioners. It is, therefore, clear, that prima facie the infirmities were such, about which information could be obtained by attempting an exercise for the same. There is no pleading on behalf of the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 that it was impossible to locate the infirmities. Even this Court did not record any finding that it was impossible to separate the wheat from the chaff. On the other hand there is neither any satisfaction expressed nor any reason given for cancelling the entire selections. 23. The question as to whether the entire selections deserves to be cancelled or not is dependent on the nature and extent of irregularities. As held by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Rajesh, AIR 2003 SC 4222 , whenever there are such allegations then the concerned authority has to undertake an exercise on the principles laid down in the aforesaid decision before cancelling the entire selections. In the instant case, as pointed out herein above and as indicated in the report of the 3 Member Committee, there is no indication of any mass scale irregularities which would justify the cancellation of the entire selections. The errors pointed out were prima facie capable of being rectified. In the absence of any such satisfaction recorded in the impugned order dated 10.4.2006 or any material brought forward through an Affidavit, it cannot be said that the irregularities were of such a large scale that the same could not be identified. However, this observation is being made with a caution as the office of the Advocate General did not undertake any such exercise. The same is not reflected either in the Affidavits or in the impugned order. Apart from this, no Affidavit was filed inspite of the order dated 6.3.2006 in Writ Petition No. 1200 of 2006. However, this observation is being made with a caution as the office of the Advocate General did not undertake any such exercise. The same is not reflected either in the Affidavits or in the impugned order. Apart from this, no Affidavit was filed inspite of the order dated 6.3.2006 in Writ Petition No. 1200 of 2006. In such a situation, this Court does not find any ample material so as to justify the cancellation of the entire selections including that of the petitioners. The only prima facie evidence that had come forth is that which was reflected in the order dated 6.3.2006 and on the basis thereof, coupled with the statement of learned Additional Advocate General, the said writ petition was disposed of, without there being any adjudication on the discrepancies and infirmities and putting the petitioners to notice. Keeping in view the ratio of the decision referred to herein above, this Court finds that the procedure adopted by the Advocate General Office in cancelling the selection was contrary to law. The aforesaid view is also supported by a decision rendered by me in the case of Kiran Sonker v. State of U.P. and others, 2006 (V) ALJ 501. In view of the aforesaid conclusions drawn, the order impugned dated 10.4.2006, therefore, deserves to be set aside. 24. There is yet another aspect of the matter which deserves to be dealt with on the issue as to whether the judgment dated 9.3.2006 and the order dated 6.3.2006 passed therein in any way binds the petitioners and seals their fate. A perusal of the order dated 6.3.2006 indicates that the Standing Counsel was required to file an Affidavit disclosing the information sought therein. Admittedly, no such Affidavit was filed either explaining the discrepancies referred to therein or objecting to them. A statement was made by the learned Additional Advocate General on the basis of the information received from the Advocate General that a decision had been taken to cancel the entire selections. On the basis of the aforesaid information and the statement so made on behalf of the Advocate General, the Court disposed of the writ petition as in its opinion no further orders were required to be passed. The question is as to whether the said judgment has any binding effect as against the petitioners. 25. On the basis of the aforesaid information and the statement so made on behalf of the Advocate General, the Court disposed of the writ petition as in its opinion no further orders were required to be passed. The question is as to whether the said judgment has any binding effect as against the petitioners. 25. In order to ascertain the binding impact of the judgment, a very essential fact to be taken into consideration is, that the petitioners were not parties to the said writ petition. Secondly, 4 instances, which had been indicated in the order dated 6.3.2006, were not in respect of the petitioners and, thirdly, no such discrepancies or infirmities were either agitated or assessed before the said Court. At least the orders dated 6.3.2006 and 9.3.2006 do not reflect anything about the petitioners. The argument of the petitioners, therefore, that they were non-suited without observing the principles of natural justice, has to be accepted inasmuch as neither the Advocate General nor this Court did provide any opportunity to the petitioners prior to the cancellation of their selections and appointments nor it was made known to them that their selections were being cancelled on account of any valid reason. 26. Apart from this in order a judgment to be operating as a binding precedent, it has to be founded on firm principles and supported by reasons. This is equally true for judgment inter parties and also for judgments to operate as binding precedents. The Apex Court in the case of Smt. Swaran Lata Ghosh v. K.K. Banerjee and others, (1969) 1 SCC 709 (para 6), has ruled as under : “6. Trial of a civil dispute in Court is intended to achieve, according to law and the procedure of the Court, a judicial determination between the contesting parties of the matter in controversy. Opportunity to the parties interested in the dispute to present their respective cases on questions of law as well as fact, ascertainment of facts by means of evidence tendered by the parties, and adjudication by a reasoned judgment of the dispute upon a finding on the facts in controversy and application of the law to the facts found, are essential attributes of a judicial trial. In a judicial trial the Judge not only must reach a conclusion which he regards as just, but, unless otherwise permitted, by the practice of the Court or by law, he must record the ultimate mental process leading from the dispute to its solution. A judicial determination of a disputed claim where substantial questions of law or fact arise is satisfactorily reached, only if it be supported by the most cogent reasons that suggest themselves to the Judge a mere order deciding the matter in dispute not supported by reasons is no judgment at all. Recording of reasons in support of a decision of a disputed claim serves more purposes than one. It is intended to ensure that the decision is not the result of whim or fancy, but of a judicial approach to the matter in contest: it is also intended to ensure adjudication of the matter according to law and the procedure established by law. A party to the dispute is ordinarily entitled to know the grounds on which the Court has decided against him, and more so, when the judgment is subject to appeal. The Appellate Court will then have adequate material on which it may determine whether the facts are properly ascertained, the law has been correctly applied and the resultant decision is just. It is unfortunate that the learned Trial Judge has recorded no reasons in support of his conclusion, and the High Court in appeal merely recorded that they thought that the plaintiff had sufficiently proved the case in the plaint.” 27. In another case in Balraj Taneja and another v. Sunil Madan and another, (1999) 8 SCC 396 , the Apex Court explaining the same principles enshrined in Section 2 (9) CPC, read with Order 20 Rule 4 (2) CPC, ruled as under : “42. “Judgment” as defined in Section 2(9) of the Code of Civil Procedure means the statement given by the Judge of the grounds for a decree or order. What a judgment should contain is indicated in Order 20 Rule 4 (2) which says that a judgment, “shall contain a concise statement of the case, the points for determination, the decision thereon, and the reasons for such decision”. What a judgment should contain is indicated in Order 20 Rule 4 (2) which says that a judgment, “shall contain a concise statement of the case, the points for determination, the decision thereon, and the reasons for such decision”. It should be a self-contained document from which it should appear as to what were the facts of the case and what was the controversy which was tried to be settled by the Court and in what manner. The process of reasoning by which the Court came to the ultimate conclusion and decreed the suit should be reflected clearly in the judgment. 45. Learned Counsel for Respondent 1 contended that the provisions of Order 20 Rule 4(2) would apply only to contested cases as it is only in those cases that “the points for determination” as mentioned in this rule will have to be indicated, and not in a case in which the written statement has not been filed by the defendants and the facts set out in the plaint are deemed to have been admitted. We do not agree. Whether it is a case which is contested by the defendants by filing a written statement, or a case which proceeds ex-parte and is ultimately decided as an ex-parte case, or is a case in which the written statement is not filed and the case is decided under Order 8 Rule 10, the Court has to write a judgment which must be in conformity with the provisions of the Code or at least set out the reasoning by which the controversy is resolved.” 28. Not only this, it is obligatory for the Court to support its conclusion on the basis of the material as required to be considered for arriving at a finding. 29. It is true that the principle of precedent is distinct from the principle of Res-judicata. A precedent operates to bind in similar situations in a distinct case. Res-judicata operates to bind parties to proceedings for no other reasons, but that there should be an end to litigation. See (2005) 6 SCC 304 (para 20). Viewed from this angle as well, no such ingredients exist in the judgment dated 9.3.2006 so as to estopp the petitioners. The order impugned dated 10.4.2006 was not even in existence on the date when the judgment was delivered i.e. on 9.3.2006. This was a fresh cause of action. See (2005) 6 SCC 304 (para 20). Viewed from this angle as well, no such ingredients exist in the judgment dated 9.3.2006 so as to estopp the petitioners. The order impugned dated 10.4.2006 was not even in existence on the date when the judgment was delivered i.e. on 9.3.2006. This was a fresh cause of action. The petitioners were stopped from working w.e.f. 13.4.2006. 30. The parties should know the evidence against them as they have a right to know about the material against them. The principles of Res-judicata will not apply as the decision dated 9.3.2006 is neither between the same parties nor the order of cancellation was in existence to be adjudicated upon. The issue of alleged irregularities was presumed to be pervasive enough on the statement of the learned Advocate General and only on a perusal of 4 answer-books and the marks allotted to them. The order dated 6.3.2006 records that there were other details which were not being set out and for that the Standing Counsel had been called upon to furnish information by filing an Affidavit. As is evident from the records, no such Affidavit was filed nor any further information was disclosed. The statement of learned Advocate General to propose to cancel the selections and appointments was recorded and without any further orders, the petition was disposed off finally. 31. This proceeding, as recorded, cannot be treated as a direction to cancel the appointments nor does it amount to a decision between the concerned parties so as to have the binding effect of either as res-judicata or a precedent. 32. The counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in the present writ petition denies the availability of the documents, filed along with the impleadment application of Vivek Kumar and others, on the record of the file in the Advocate General’s office. It is also alleged that the said applicants should be compelled to disclose the source from where such documents have been procured as the same appear to be manufactured. The aforesaid denial has been rebutted during arguments and the learned Counsel for the applicants Sri Amit Shukla has pointed out that the said documents indicate the discrepancies of those candidates whose reference is found in the order dated 6.3.2006. The aforesaid denial has been rebutted during arguments and the learned Counsel for the applicants Sri Amit Shukla has pointed out that the said documents indicate the discrepancies of those candidates whose reference is found in the order dated 6.3.2006. It is urged that the said cross list also bears the signature of the then learned Additional Advocate General and thereafter the said aspect be enquired into to establish the veracity of the document as also the truth of the contents thereof. 33. This could have been done by the Court on the previous occasion had such an issue been seriously contested. However, since these facts are being alleged and also denied, this Court need not enter into this exercise, leaving it open to the learned Advocate General to investigate and form his own independent opinion about the same, but of course after providing full opportunity to the parties in the matter. This alleged “error of fact” deserves to be viewed looking into the nature of the allegations and counter allegations while the matter is considered by the learned Advocate General. 34. In the instant case, the Court may have arrived at a prima facie finding as contained in the order dated 6.3.2006 but the same did not crystallize into a final finding on this issue when the matter was finally disposed of on 9.3.2006. The Court proceeded to dispose of the petitions only on the basis of the statement made on behalf of the learned Advocate General. It is to be noted that the rights of a third party cannot be taken away on the mere concession of the learned Counsel for the State. Reference may be made to the decisions reported in : (1) Ramrao and others v. All India Backward Class Bank Employees Welfare Association and others, (2004) 2 SCC 76 (Paras 25 to 28 and 37); (2) State of U.P. and another v. Satya Narain Kapoor and others, (2004) 8 SCC 630 (Para 13); (3) G. Sathi Reddy v. Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. and others, (2004) 10 SCC 183 (Paras 5 and 6); and (4) Mukesh Singh Kushwa v. State of M.P., (2005) 11 SCC 598 . 35. This is evident in this case as the petitioners were not represented when the statement made by the learned Advocate General was made the basis for the disposal of the writ petition. 35. This is evident in this case as the petitioners were not represented when the statement made by the learned Advocate General was made the basis for the disposal of the writ petition. The petitioners could have very well argued that it is a wrong concession which has been made and a wrong concession made by a Counsel does not bind the contesting party as well. Reference may be had to the case reported in (1998) 6 SCC 538 (Paras 22 and 23) and (2001) 5 SCC 60 (Paras 13 and 14). 36. In the opinion of the Court, the aforesaid judgment dated 9.3.2006 does not adjudicate the claim of the petitioners at all and, therefore, the contention of the respondent-State that the said judgment goes against the petitioners cannot be accepted. On the contrary the said judgment is not a judgment in rein so as to bind the petitioners in any way. The petitioners have an independent right which they have agitated in the present writ petition and which they are entitled to do so. In the opinion of the Court, the Advocate General office committed a manifest error by making a statement before the Court without undertaking any exercise to find out the nature and extent of irregularities after putting all the affected parties including the petitioners to notice. The action of the office of Advocate General, therefore, is unsustainable in the eyes of law and the impugned order dated 10.4.2006 is, therefore, liable to be quashed. 37. In a recent compilation of Articles provided to me by my esteemed colleague Hon. Mr. Justice Yatindra Singh, I have come across an article written on the “Writing of Judgment” by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Michael Kirby, President of New South Wales, Court of Appeal (Australia). In the opinion of the Hon’ble Judge, it is a judicial obligation to give reasons in support of the judgment while resolving factual disputes. The facts must be found and the relevant finding must be recorded on credibility of the evidence available which has sufficient exposition of law applicable. This, in the opinion of the Hon’ble Judge, is necessary to permit a disappointed litigant to consider and if so advised, exercise his rights of appeal for which the law provides. The reasons given by the Court must, therefore, serve many purposes, including a Court of Appeal to know the reasons for the judgment. 38. This, in the opinion of the Hon’ble Judge, is necessary to permit a disappointed litigant to consider and if so advised, exercise his rights of appeal for which the law provides. The reasons given by the Court must, therefore, serve many purposes, including a Court of Appeal to know the reasons for the judgment. 38. In the instant case, the reliance placed by the respondents on the judgment dated 9.3.2006 for passing the impugned order, cannot be accepted as in view of the discussion made herein above, the judgment dated 9.3.2006 does not satisfy any of the aforesaid tests and is, therefore, not binding on the petitioners. The petitioners have been clearly deprived of their right to protest against the proposed cancellation of their appointments, which they had every right to do, given the nature of allegations made in respect of the selections. 39. On the gamut of facts of this case and the findings arrived at herein above, this Court finds it necessary that the Advocate General ought to have undertaken an exercise to at least unearth the reasons and also the material for cancelling the selections. For this, it is necessary that an opportunity should be given to the petitioners and the learned Advocate General should also consider the evidence which has been brought on record before this Court including the cross list filed along with Impleadment Application of Vivek Kumar and others. Even though, a counter-affidavit has been filed to the said Impleadment Application but the nature of denial made in the counter-affidavit does require an investigation. The wrong, as alleged by the respondents, could have been corrected after searching out the entire material and having placed it before the Court and after opportunity to the parties concerned. This exercise was not undertaken at all and neither the Court nor the petitioners were ever informed about the material which had led to the conclusions, so as to warrant the cancellation. In the considered opinion of this Court, the orders dated 6.3.2006 and 9.3.2006 passed in writ petition No. 1200 of 2006 did not issue any command to the respondents to cancel the selections forth with and, therefore, the impugned order dated 10.4.2006 is founded on an erroneous assumption of fact and law. 40. Another aspect of the litigation which deserves to be noted is the procedure that was adopted for holding of the selections. 40. Another aspect of the litigation which deserves to be noted is the procedure that was adopted for holding of the selections. It was in dispute as to whether the merit list has to be prepared by clubbing the marks obtained in the written examination as well as in the interview. From the pleadings, it appears that the written examinations had been held for the purposes of short-listing and the final selections were to be made on the basis of interview.. This procedure was being justified at least at Allahabad. Whether the said procedure is in consonance with law or not and whether the said procedure is the acknowledged procedure for holding of selections for class-IV posts shall also be considered by the learned Advocate General in case the validity of the selections are questioned on this ground and also for the purposes of laying down a uniform policy for such selections in future. The learned Advocate General is expected to examine the rules in respect of class-IV engagements that are in force in other departments of the Government. This Court is not commenting upon the same, as the parties at this stage have not debated on the issue keeping in view the fact that the matter is being remitted to the learned Advocate General for a fresh consideration of the entire dispute. 41. Accordingly, the order dated 10.4.2006 brought on record through the Amendment Application is hereby quashed. However, the quashing of the order will not entitle the petitioners for any automatic reinstatement in their jobs as the nature of the allegations require an immediate thorough enquiry by the learned Advocate General and his office to find out and identify the nature of the discrepancies so as to warrant any action of cancellation of the entire selections. It is made clear that the impugned order dated 10.4.2006 has been quashed on the basis of the material which has been brought on record primarily on the ground that the procedure for cancellation was vitiated on account of the violation of principles of natural justice. The observations made in support of this judgment should not be treated to be final and conclusive insofar as the nature of the evidence and material is concerned. The observations made in support of this judgment should not be treated to be final and conclusive insofar as the nature of the evidence and material is concerned. It shall be open to the learned Advocate General to arrive at his own conclusions in respect of the material disclosed in the report of 3 Member Committee submitted before this Court and to conduct any such further enquiry and collect any such further material that may be necessary to arrive at a just conclusion. The petitioners have been out of job for a fairly long time and, as such, it is desirable that the learned Advocate General proceeds to complete the exercise and take a decision in the matter as expeditiously as possible preferably within 3 months from today. The matter shall be proceeded with after giving any reasonable opportunity that may be required in the matter to the petitioners as well. 42. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent and subject to the observations made herein above. ————