Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1773 (ALL)

Manjul Kumar v. State of U. P.

2007-07-02

DEVI PRASAD SINGH

body2007
JUDGMENT : DEVI PRASAD SINGH, J. 1. Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred challenging the select list of class IV employees in pursuance to which the opposite party Nos. 5 to 87 have been appointed. The question involved in the present writ petition is that ; whether selection and appointment which has been done in pursuance to General Rules, namely; "Group 'D' Employees' Service Rules, 1985" (in short hereinafter referred as 1985 Rules), is illegal in view of the fact that service conditions of the employees of the Arth and Sankhya Vibhag (in short hereinafter referred as the department) are governed by Rules, namely; Arth & Sankhya Vibhag Nimn Vargiya Sewa Niyamawali, 1957 (in short hereinafter referred as Service Rules, as amended in the year 1997). The other grounds raised by the Petitioners are that the selection and appointment was sham and farce and things were manipulated for extraneous reasons and considerations. 2. The opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 by an advertisement dated 28.7.2006 had invited applications to fill up 86 vacancies of Peons. The educational qualification prescribed for the post was class five passed and having knowledge of cycling. The last date for submission of the application forms was 17.8.2006. Petitioners have also submitted application forms to the Respondents through registered post. For the purpose of selection in question Sri Vishwa Nath Lal, Deputy Director, Azamgarh Region, Azamgarh, was attached to directorate of Economics & Statistics and was made Chairman of the Selection Committee by an order dated 20.7.2006, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure-CA-1 to the counter-affidavit. By an order dated 20.7.2006, Sri V. N. Lal was authorised to make appointment in pursuance to selection in question passed by Director, Economic & Statistics, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure-CA-2 to the counter-affidavit. The names were also summoned from the Employment Exchange and knowledge of cycling was made compulsory. Apart from 86 vacancies of Peon, one post of Sweeper was also advertised, which was reserved for Scheduled Caste Category. Reservation was given to Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes and O.B.C. categories in accordance to rules. Total 13,941 candidates had applied and after scrutiny 52 applications were rejected and 13,889 candidates were called for interview and 8023 candidates appeared in the interview. Reservation was given to Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes and O.B.C. categories in accordance to rules. Total 13,941 candidates had applied and after scrutiny 52 applications were rejected and 13,889 candidates were called for interview and 8023 candidates appeared in the interview. For the post of Sweeper 40 applications were received out of which 10 applications were rejected and 30 candidates were called for interview. The interview was held from 4.9.2006 to 10.10.2006 (excluding Saturdays, Sundays and other Government holidays). 3. Apart from Sri V. N. Lal, the Chairman of the Selection Committee, other members were Sri A. K. Pandey, Deputy Director Economics, Sri L. K. Singh, Economics and Statistics Officer for the office of Deputy Director, Economics & Statistics, Lucknow Division, Lucknow and Sri Akhileshwar Mishra, District Khadi and Gramouodhog Officer, the nominee of the District Magistrate, Lucknow. Admittedly, the selection was held according to Group 'D' Employees Services Rules, 1985 as amended by 3rd amendment in the year 1999, hereinafter referred as 1985 Rules. 4. According to learned standing counsel, the selection was held from 10.00 A.M. in the morning and almost 250-300 candidates were called on for interview everyday. Compilation/ evaluation of marks was completed by 7.00 p.m., as stated in paragraphs 16 to 18 of the counter-affidavit dated 18.12.2006 and paragraph 14 of the written argument submitted on behalf of the State. According to learned standing counsel it was decided that 5 marks shall be granted to the candidates who know cycling test and support their version through a certificate. 5. Though the interview process was coming to an end by 5.10.2006, but on 6.10.2006 the Selection Committee decided that defaulters or those persons who could not appear in interview should be given another chance to appear in the interview. In consequence thereof the meeting of Selection Committee was again convened and interview was held on 10.10.2006 at about 12.00 O'clock, as is evident from Annexure-CA-9 to the counter-affidavit. The decision to convene the meeting of Selection Committee afresh for defaulters was also communicated to the Director of Information, U. P., Lucknow by a letter dated 6.10.2006, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure-CA-9 to the counter-affidavit and accordingly publication was alleged to be made in the newspaper. The interview of defaulters was held on 10.10.2006 and 76 candidates had appeared, as stated in paragraph 24 of the counter-affidavit. The interview of defaulters was held on 10.10.2006 and 76 candidates had appeared, as stated in paragraph 24 of the counter-affidavit. According to learned standing counsel the Election Commission was also informed relating to selection process and in consequence thereof, the Election Commission had permitted to complete the interview process but not to declare the result. However since the Election Commission had not permitted to publish the result on account of model code of conduct, the result was declared on 8.11.2006. According to learned standing counsel the appointment letter was signed on the same day and the same was pasted on the notice board. During the course of hearing the Petitioner's counsel has vehemently argued that appointments were done for political compulsion as well as for extraneous reasons and considerations. Various allegations were raised and it was also stated that though the result was alleged to be published on 8.11.2006 but the result published and pasted on the notice board on 9.11.2006 indicate the date of declaration of the result as 9.11.2006. It has also been stated categorically in paragraphs 19 and 20 of the writ petition that selected candidates joined on 9.11.2006 itself. Petitioner's counsel further submitted that on account of internal dispute the members of the Selection Committee had not granted marks and marks of some candidates were reduced and on the other hand marks of some candidates were increased. It has also been submitted that though the members of the Selection Committee awarded marks to some other candidates but they have not been shown in the merit list. The charges relating to increase and decrease and interpolation of marks were also alleged. In view of above the entire original record was summoned. Keeping in view the bulk of record the Officer on Special Duty Sri Raghvendra Kumar was directed to peruse the entire record and submit his report. Sri Raghvendra Kumar, Officer on Special Duty has submitted two reports, the original report is of 27.1.2007 and the Supplementary Report is of 15.3.2007. The copy of the report was provided to the parties so that they may submit their response, if any. 6. Learned State counsel has filed objection while learned Counsel for the Petitioner chooses not to file any objection. The copy of the report was provided to the parties so that they may submit their response, if any. 6. Learned State counsel has filed objection while learned Counsel for the Petitioner chooses not to file any objection. From the enquiry report the following serious irregularities have been noticed by the Inquiry Officer after perusal of the records relating to grant, reduction or increase of marks. The extract of the report is reproduced as under: (A) Names of Selected Candidates to whom marks were granted by the members, but reduced marks shown in the Merit List S. No. Roll No. Name 1. 2760 Satendra Yadav 2. 4345 Sri Harak Singh Gosai 3. 8185 Mohd. Siddiq (B) Names of Selected Candidates whose marks were increased in the Combined Merit List S. No. Roll No. Name 1. 299 Santosh Kumar Singh S/o Ram Ji Singh 2. 334 Santosh Kumar Singh S/o Kashi Nath Singh 3. 1135 Prem Shankar Singh 4. 7515 Uma Shankar 5. 8506 Tamanna Khatoon 6. 10199 Smt. Bitto Devi 7. 13429 Smt. Vineeta Devi (C) Names of Non-Selected Candidates who were awarded marks by the members, but not shown in the Merit S. No. Roll No. Name 1. 560 Santosh Kumar Pandey 2. 860 Sumesh Yadav 3. 2054 Anil Kumar Rathore 4. 2595 Chandra Has Singh 5. 2636 Mukesh Verma 6. 2846 Dhirendra Kumar Verma 7. 2847 Mahendra Kumar 8. 2911 Mohd. Hasan Abbasi 9. 2917 Smt. Alka Singh 10. 3075 Dharm Pal Singh 11. 3107 Sanjay Kumar 12. 3255 Manuwar Ali 13. 3495 Raju 14. 3581 Surendra Kumar Verma 15. 3800 Praveesh Kumar Singh 16. 3884 Km. Suman Kumari 17. 3890 Uma Shankar 18. 3891 Vipin Kumar Tharu 19. 3940 Gaurav Sharma 20. 3976 Krishna Kumar 21. 4456 Jasbindra Singh Yadav 22. 4469 Avadesh Kumar 23. 4991 Atul Kumar 24. 5317 Ahsaan Ali Siddiqui 25. 5230 Mannu Kumar 26. 5385 Hanumaan Prasad 27. 5460 Naveen Kumar 28. 5480 Vinod Kumar Vishvakarma 29. 5782 Sunil Kumar Yadav 30. 5783 Mahtab Hussain 31. 5784 Fareed Hussain 32. 6086 Ravi Kumar 33. 7878 Ashish Singh 34. 10497 Atul Kumar Kanaujia 35. 10671 Akbar Ali 36. 10786 Tribhuvan Singh 37. 11518 Raj Kumar Yadav 38. 11704 Kailash Nath 39. 11804 Kausar Ali 40. 11864 Ajeet Kumar Bharti 41. 12555 Sunil Kumar 42. 12599 Ram Bahore 43. 5782 Sunil Kumar Yadav 30. 5783 Mahtab Hussain 31. 5784 Fareed Hussain 32. 6086 Ravi Kumar 33. 7878 Ashish Singh 34. 10497 Atul Kumar Kanaujia 35. 10671 Akbar Ali 36. 10786 Tribhuvan Singh 37. 11518 Raj Kumar Yadav 38. 11704 Kailash Nath 39. 11804 Kausar Ali 40. 11864 Ajeet Kumar Bharti 41. 12555 Sunil Kumar 42. 12599 Ram Bahore 43. 13456 Anil Kumar (D) Names of Non-Selected Candidates whose marks have been increased in the Combined Merit List S. No. Roll No. Name 1. 298 Ramesh Kumar Yadav 2. 374 Ram Asrey Yadav 3. 595 Ram Pratap 4. 968 Krishna Kumar 5. 1049 Manik Chand 6. 1090 Akhilesh Kumar Tiwari 7. 1270 Satya Narayan Yadav 8. 1622 Sunil Kumar 9. 1937 Jay Prakash 10. 2035 Ashwini Kumar 11. 2103 Pankaj Kumar Tiwari 12. 2233 Madan Chand 13. 2273 Rakesh Dhar Dubey 14. 2404 Sheetal Prasad Vishvakarma 15. 2918 Rajesh Kumar Saini 16. 3162 Mohd. Ishtiyak 17. 3240 Amit Kumar Kashyap 18. 3505 Ram Sundar 19. 3506 Vinay Kumar Srinet 20. 3507 Khajanchi Lal 21. 3903 Manmohan Singh Kashyap 22. 4938 Rajesh Kumar 23. 5081 Dhrup Chand 24. 5107 Chandra Shekhar Ram 25. 5407 Smt. Aarti Vishvakarma 26. 5508 Jitendra Kumar Yadav 27. 5765 Srinath 28. 5918 Manoj Kumar 29. 5920 Vijendra Kumar 30. 5999 Sanjeet Kumar Chaudhari 31. 6113 Ajay Kumar Yadav 32. 6203 Hari Ram Yadav 33. 6212 Rushtam Ali 34. 6300 Sunil Kumar 35. 6466 Arvind Kumar Maurya 36. 6509 Rajesh Kumar 37. 6636 Dhananjay Kumar 38. 7243 Mohd. Muslim 39. 7280 Omveer Singh 40. 7373 Mahesh Kumar Kashyap 41. 7498 Arvind Kumar Singh 42. 7538 Pradeep Sharma 43. 7787 Anil Kumar 44. 7889 Mohd. Babban 45. 7986 Brijesh Kumar 46. 8544 Sandeep Yadav 47. 8663 Satendra Kumar 48. 8683 Pradeep Kumar 49. 8688 Rajesh Kumar Gotam 50. 8771 Shaukeen Singh 51. 8818 Saroj Kumar 52. 9009 Dharmendra Kumar Singh 53. 9265 Vijay Kumar Prajapati 54. 9768 Vikas Kumar Bavra 55. 9860 Savitri Devi 56. 9997 Ranjeet Kumar 57. 10085 Vinod Kumar 58. 10090 Satish Chandra 59. 10529 Vishambhar Singh 60. 11506 Mukhtar Ahmad 61. 11623 Subhash Chandra 62. 12028 Vijay Kumar Yadav 63. 12162 Raj Kumar Sharma 64. 12517 Indra Bahadur Yadav 65. 12796 Girish Chandra 66. 12880 Pawan Kumar Tiwari 67. 13427 Ashok Kumar 68. 9860 Savitri Devi 56. 9997 Ranjeet Kumar 57. 10085 Vinod Kumar 58. 10090 Satish Chandra 59. 10529 Vishambhar Singh 60. 11506 Mukhtar Ahmad 61. 11623 Subhash Chandra 62. 12028 Vijay Kumar Yadav 63. 12162 Raj Kumar Sharma 64. 12517 Indra Bahadur Yadav 65. 12796 Girish Chandra 66. 12880 Pawan Kumar Tiwari 67. 13427 Ashok Kumar 68. 13699 Surendra Kumar Singh Yadav (E) Names of Non-Selected Candidates to whom marks were not granted by the members of the Selection Committee, but shown in the Merit List S. No. Roll No. Name 1. 153 Nanhe Lal 2. 154 Ram Lochan 3. 155 Ram Pal Maurya 4. 161 Umesh Kumar 5. 468 Hemendra Kumar Rana 6. 480 Sunil Kumar 7. 2102 Ajit Kumar Misra 8. 2230 Jagat Pal 9. 2725 Vishal Kapoor 10. 2771 Anil Kumar Pal 11. 3494 Akhilesh Kumar Pandey 12. 4416 Chandin Deo Maurya 13. 4705 Mukesh Kumar 14. 4773 Haidar Ali 15. 6089 Upendra Kumar 16. 6642 Rakesh Kumar Mal 17. 6866 Atar Singh 18. 8507 Sunil Kumar Singh 19. 8664 Pradeep Kumar Verma 20. 9055 Sanjay Singh 21. 11777 Umesh Ram 22. 12028 Vijay Kumar Yadav 23. 12426 Komal 24. 12727 Hemant Shankar Pandey 25. 12880 Pawan Kumar Tiwari 26. 12942 Manoj Kumar 27. 13258 Narendra Kumar Misra 28. 13288 Bholanath Yadav 29. 13301 Shyam Kishor Tripathi 30. 13470 Suresh Chandra 31. 13478 Virendra Kumar 32. 13907 Krishna Gopal (F) Names of Non-Selected Candidates whose marks were reduced in the Combined Merit List S. No. Roll No. Name 1. 129 Ajay Kumar 2. 193 Suneet Kumar Singh 3. 300 Ram Shrot Singh 4. 312 Anirudh Kumar Verma 5. 861 Sharda Devi Namdeo 6. 1437 Hajari Prasad 7. 1471 Sudesh Kumar 8. 1755 Prabhat Kumar 9. 1923 Ajay Pratap Singh 10. 1924 Sri Nrayan Singh 11. 1926 Shanno Devi 12. 1939 Ajay Kumar Gupta 13. 1996 Jogendra Singh 14. 2122 Dinesh Kumar Rawat 15. 2235 Kamil Ali 16. 2238 Mani Ram 17. 2403 Ramesh Chandra Kaushal 18. 2902 Raveesh Kumar Singh 19. 2938 Uday Singh 20. 3002 Surendra Bahadur Yadav 21. 3238 Pramendra Pandey 22. 3239 Kamlesh Kumar 23. 3253 Atul Kumar Barnwal 24. 3263 Ajay Kumar Misra 25. 3279 Dheeraj Kumar 26. 3359 Satish Chandra Tiwari 27. 3448 Manish Kumar Shukla 28. 3636 Munnu Prasad 29. 3717 Lallan Bharti 30. 3749 Sandeep Kumar Gupta 31. 4007 Dinesh Trivedi 32. 4461 Amrendra Singh 33. 4572 Lalit Singh 34. 3238 Pramendra Pandey 22. 3239 Kamlesh Kumar 23. 3253 Atul Kumar Barnwal 24. 3263 Ajay Kumar Misra 25. 3279 Dheeraj Kumar 26. 3359 Satish Chandra Tiwari 27. 3448 Manish Kumar Shukla 28. 3636 Munnu Prasad 29. 3717 Lallan Bharti 30. 3749 Sandeep Kumar Gupta 31. 4007 Dinesh Trivedi 32. 4461 Amrendra Singh 33. 4572 Lalit Singh 34. 4731 Subodh Kumar 35. 4874 Ramesh Chandra Verma 36. 5095 Amit Kamlesh 37. 5375 Arvind Richharia 38. 5379 Alok Kumar Yadav 39. 5407 Smt. Aarti Vishvakarma 40. 5875 Deepak Kumar 41. 6008 Anil Kumar Vimal 42. 6049 Sumit Kumar 43. 6167 Prem Pal 44. 6239 Jai Prakash Shukla 45. 6869 Ashish Singh 46. 7230 Laxmi Shankar 47. 7267 Kusum Lata Misra 48. 7349 Vijay Kumar Tiwari 49. 7568 Shatrughan Tiwari 50. 7576 Yousuf Ali Rizvi 51. 7732 Raj Kumar 52. 8110 Pramod Kumar 53. 8127 Ramanand 54. 8347 Ashutosh Kumar Tiwari 55. 8424 Manish Kumar 56. 8503 Ganga Dhar Kashyap 57. 8616 Chandra Mohan Singh 58. 8707 Akhilesh Sonkar 59. 8808 Wasim Ahmad 60. 8812 Ritesh Kumar Shukla 61. 9105 Mohd. Shahnawal 62. 9191 Kamlesh Kumar 63. 9511 Ram Sumiran 64. 9720 Raj Pal Singh 65. 9766 Satish Kumar 66. 9789 Dharmendra Kumar Tiwari 67. 9859 Km. Munni Singh 68. 9890 Ram Kamal Kushwaha 69. 10034 Yogesh Kumar 70. 10446 Fakhruddin Ali 71. 10884 Nand Lal Prajapati 72. 11111 Mohan Lal 73. 11122 Muneem Singh 74. 11283 Nauvat Singh 75. 11446 Shakeel Ahmad 76. 11634 Rahees Ahmad 77. 11646 Deep Chandra 78. 12106 Amresh Kumar Verma 79. 12118 Irshad Khan 80. 12712 Subhash Rao 81. 12980 Surendra Kumar Sahu 82. 13096 Digvijay 83. 13309 Subhash Lodhi 84. 13355 Sunil Kumar Singh 85. 13396 Pradeep Kumar 86. 13498 Ajmer Singh 87. 13945 Sunil Kumar Verma 7. It has been submitted by the Petitioners' counsel that most of the candidates, who have been selected, belong to Siddhartha Nagar, Azamgarh and Etawah and address of some of the candidates, who applied, have given their address to be C/o Chief Minister of the State and other Ministers as well as members of the Legislative Assembly. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners has invited attention to some of the individual cases relying upon the report submitted by Officer on Special Duty of this Court, which are as under: (i) Satendra Yadav (Roll No. 2760) was granted 13 marks but in calculation sheet it has been shown as 11 marks. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners has invited attention to some of the individual cases relying upon the report submitted by Officer on Special Duty of this Court, which are as under: (i) Satendra Yadav (Roll No. 2760) was granted 13 marks but in calculation sheet it has been shown as 11 marks. (ii) Sri P. S. Singh (Roll No. 1135) has not been given 5 marks for cycle test, though all the candidates have been awarded marks. (iii) Sri Harakh Singh Gosai (Roll No. 4345) was granted 10 marks and 11 marks by two members but in the calculation sheet it has been shown that Mr. Lal and Mr. Pandey has granted 5 marks each. (iv) Sri Uma Shankar (Roll No. 7515) was not granted any mark by Mr. Lal but he has been shown to be granted 9 marks by Sri Lal and Sri Pandey. (v) Mohammad Siddiq (Roll No. 8185) have been shown to be granted 13 marks but in the calculation sheet he has been shown to be awarded 12 marks. (vi) Similarly, in the case of Vineeta Devi (Roll No. 13429), no marks appear to have been granted by Sri Mishra but it has been shown that 5 marks have been awarded. Thus, it has been virtually admitted that with regard to substantial number of candidates either marks have been reduced or increased. The members of selection committee have not granted marks to substantial number of candidates. One Ram Shrot Singh (Roll No. 300) has been given 10 marks but in calculation chart it has been indicated as 6 marks. 8. While defending the State's action it has been stated by the Respondents' counsel that simple irregularities have been committed by the Selection Committee by not recording correct marks and it shall not be fatal to final outcome to the result in question. It has been further submitted that the errors found by the O.S.D. in records are simply clerical mistakes and call for no interference by this Court. However, the Respondents have not denied the finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer. 9. It has been further submitted that the errors found by the O.S.D. in records are simply clerical mistakes and call for no interference by this Court. However, the Respondents have not denied the finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer. 9. Though in counter-affidavit it has been stated that almost 250 to 300 candidates were called for interview between 4.9.2006 to 10.10.2006 and interview continued for 26 dates, but the perusal of the interview programme notified by the competent authority shows that almost 500 candidates were called each and everyday for the purpose of interview. The schedule of interview has been filed as Annexure-CA7 to the counter-affidavit. For convenience, Annexure-CA7 of the counter-affidavit is reproduced as under in its totality: Description of interview dates Sl. No. Dates Sl. No. from Sl. No. to Description 1. 4.9.2006 1 500 2. 5.9.2006 501 1000 3. 6.9.2006 1001 1500 4. 7.9.2006 1501 2000 5. 8.9.2006 2001 2500 6. 9 & 10.9. 2006 - - Holiday 7. 11.9.2006 2501 3000 8. 12.9.2006 3001 3500 9. 13.9.2006 3501 4000 10. 14.9.2006 4001 4500 11. 15.9.2006 4501 5000 12. 16 & 17.9.2006 - - Holiday 13. 18.9.2006 5001 5500 14. 19.9.2006 5501 6100 5666 & 5670 to 5680 missing 15. 20.9.2006 6101 6700 16. 21.9.2006 6701 7300 17. 22.9.2006 7301 7800 18. 23 & 24.9.2006 - - Holiday 19. 25.9.2006 7801 8400 20. 26.9.2006 8401 9000 21. 27.9.2006 9101 9600 22. 28.9.2006 9601 10200 23. 29.9.2006 10201 10700 10498 missing 24. 30.9.2006 to 2.10.2006 - - Dashehra holiday 25. 3.10.2006 10701 11300 26. 4.10.2006 11301 11900 27. 5.10.2006 11901 12500 28. 6.10.2006 12501 13000 29. 7 & 8.10.2006 - - Holiday 30. 9.10.2006 13001 13600 31. 10.10.2006 136001 Thus, at the face of record submission of learned standing counsel that only 250-300 candidates were called for interview, is incorrect. 10. On behalf of opposite party No. 45 Sri Sandeep Chandra, learned Counsel, submits that petition has been filed on vague assertions without annexing evidence in support of the petition hence it is not maintainable. It has been further submitted that unsuccessful candidates do not have right to file writ petition. The other submission is that this Court cannot sit as appellate authority over and above the Selection Committee. 11. It has been further submitted that unsuccessful candidates do not have right to file writ petition. The other submission is that this Court cannot sit as appellate authority over and above the Selection Committee. 11. During course of argument it was admitted by learned standing counsel that interview letter was not sent to one Chandrika Prasad Yadav, in consequence thereof he could not appear for selection in question. Accordingly, Sri Chandrika Prasad Yadav proceeded to file a writ petition which was numbered as Writ Petition No. 9409 (S/S) of 2006. It has been brought into the notice of this Court that opposite party Nos. 11 and 12 are the real brother. Some of the candidates, against whom it has been stated that they have been selected for political reasons and instead of their actual address they have been mentioned as residents of Lucknow through their political affiliations, are as under: (i) Chhote Lal Yadav s/o Sri Shambhu Dayal Yadav, r/o Hon. Chief Minister's residence, Lucknow. (ii) Ram Nath Yadav s/o Sri Ram Bharose Yadav, r/o State Office of Samajvadi Party, U. P., 19, Vikramaditya Marg, Lucknow. (iii) Jai Prakash s/o Ram Lochan, r/o State Office of Samajvadi Party, U. P., 19, Vikramaditya Marg, Lucknow. (iv) Arjun Yadav s/o Sri Makhkhan Yadav, r/o J-1, Park Road, Vidhayak Niwas, Lucknow. (v) Saroj Kumar s/o Sri Vishram c/o Sri Ram Saran Das, Gautampalli, Vikramaditya Marg, Lucknow. (vi) Ram Dhiraj s/o Sri Satguru Prasad r/o Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Nyas, Vikramaditya Marg, Lucknow. Apart from above noted persons, six candidates from district Etawah, 10 candidates from Azamgarh, 21 candidates including above from district Lucknow and 14 candidates from district Siddhartha Nagar, have been selected. However, this fact itself without any material shall not constitute malicious intent. 12. In response to argument advanced by the Respondents' counsel, Petitioners' counsel submits that the selection has been done for political consideration. During the course of argument it was submitted by Sri Vinod Kumar Singh, Additional Advocate General, that local address was given by some of the candidates while filling the forms for convenience, hence it does not suffer from any illegality. 13. During the course of argument selectees were impleaded by the Petitioners and this Court had directed to send notices to the impleaded persons through the department also, and service report has been filed. Applicability of Rules 14. 13. During the course of argument selectees were impleaded by the Petitioners and this Court had directed to send notices to the impleaded persons through the department also, and service report has been filed. Applicability of Rules 14. Subject to facts and circumstances, discussed herein-above, present petition calls for adjudication by this Court, it was submitted by Sri Vinod Kumar Singh, Additional Advocate General that selection was done in accordance to provisions contained in The Group 'D' Employees Service Rules, 1985. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners has proceeded to submit that selection should have been done in accordance to provisions contained in Arth & Sankhya Vibhag Nimn Vargiya Sewa Niyamawali, 1957. According to department service rules the selection should be held by a Committee of District level. However, Sri Vinod Kumar Singh, Additional Advocate General has invited attention towards Rule 3 of the Service Rules, 1985, which provides that 1985 Rules shall have got overriding effect. For convenience, Rule 3 of the Service Rules of 1985 is reproduced as under: 3. Overriding effect of these rules.--In the event of any inconsistency between these rules and a specific rule or rules pertaining to any of the aforesaid posts in any department: (i) the provisions contained in these rules shall prevail to the extent to the inconsistency in case the specific rules were made prior to the commencement of these rules ; and (ii) the provisions contained in the specific rules shall prevail in case they are made after the commencement of these rules. 15. Keeping in view the overriding effect of 1985 Rules, which provide that in the event of any inconsistency between 1985 Rules and the specific rules of the department the provisions contained in 1985 Rules shall prevail to the extent of inconsistency. Accordingly, it was permissible for the Respondents to hold the selection in pursuance to 1985 Rules. Petitioners' counsel has failed to point out any illegality in the selection process held in pursuance to 1985 Rules. The only argument advanced by the Petitioners' counsel is that 1985 Rules shall not be applicable, which seems to be not sustainable in view of provisions contained in Rule 3 of 1985 Rules. The 1985 Rules have been framed in pursuance to power conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The only argument advanced by the Petitioners' counsel is that 1985 Rules shall not be applicable, which seems to be not sustainable in view of provisions contained in Rule 3 of 1985 Rules. The 1985 Rules have been framed in pursuance to power conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Since Legislature by virtue of Rule 3 has given overriding effect hence to the extent of inconsistency 1985 Rules shall be applicable. The argument advanced by the Petitioners' counsel relating to applicability of Rules seems to be not sustainable and fails. Interview 16. The next contention of the Petitioners' counsel is that the interview was held for 26 days and 8,023 candidates appeared in the interview, rendered the entire interview sham and farce. Even if, the interview was held for about 8 hours a day then for 500 candidates during 8 hours of interview only one minute was given to each candidate. If the period of interview is enhanced to 10 hours then time spent for each candidate comes to almost 1.5 minute, which reveals that either only a formality was done by the Selection Committee with pre-decided mind. The candidates were called and returned back without interview with reasonable depth. A common man of ordinary prudence shall always think that the Selection Committee has only completed formality without applying its mind to merit of each and every candidate. In case the interview was held by providing one minute or 1.5 minute to each candidate then it shall amount to make mockery of the system and even to slightest degree it shall not be possible to assume that selection was held in a just and fair manner. 17. In similar circumstances this Court in a case in Lalit Kumar and Ors. v. King George's Medical College and others, 2007 LCD 460 had struck down a selection of the employee of King George's Medical College, Lucknow. Select List 18. From the details given in the preceding paragraphs, at the face of record, it is clear that in substantial number of cases either marks were increased or decreased. v. King George's Medical College and others, 2007 LCD 460 had struck down a selection of the employee of King George's Medical College, Lucknow. Select List 18. From the details given in the preceding paragraphs, at the face of record, it is clear that in substantial number of cases either marks were increased or decreased. With regard to some of the candidates though marks were granted by the Members of the Selection Committee but it was not entered in the compilation chart, in substantial number of cases while making entry in the combined merit list marks have been increased, interpolation to some extent has also been done. Thus, it is evident that either on account of interpolation, unfair practice or by other unforeseen reasons the result has been affected and marks of the selected candidates are not based on true and actual appreciation of their merit. Some of the candidates have been selected but others have suffered on account of arbitrariness on the part of the Members of the Selection Committee. Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case in Ram Preeti Yadav Vs. U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education and Others, AIR 2003 SC 4268 defined the word "fraud" as under: Fraud is a conduct either by letter or words, which induces the other person or authority to take a definite determinative stand as a response to the conduct of the former either by words or letter. Although negligence is not fraud but it can be evidence on fraud. 19. While defining the word 'fraud', Hon'ble Supreme Court in one another case in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by L.Rs. Vs. Jagannath (dead) by L.Rs. and others, AIR 1994 SC 853 held that a fraud is an act of deliberate deception with the design of securing something by taking unfair advantage of another. It is a deception in order to gain by another's loss. It is a cheating intended to get an advantage. 20. In a recent judgment in The State of Andhra Pradesh and Another Vs. T. Suryachandra Rao, AIR 2005 SC 3110 Apex Court held that fraud as is well known vitiates every solemn act. The fraud and justice never dwell together. Fraud is a conduct either by letter or words, which includes other persons or authority to take a definite determinative stand as a response to the conduct of the former either by words or letter. The fraud and justice never dwell together. Fraud is a conduct either by letter or words, which includes other persons or authority to take a definite determinative stand as a response to the conduct of the former either by words or letter. A fraudulent misrepresentation is called deceit and consists in leading a man into damage by wilfully or recklessly causing him to believe and act on falsehood. It is a fraud in law if parties make representation which he knows to be false and injury ensues therefrom although the motive from which the representations proceeded may not have been bad. 21. A collusion or conspiracy or fraud committed with a view to deprive the rights of other would render the entire action void ab initio. Fraud and deception are synonymous. A relevant portion from the case of State of A. P. and Anr. v. T. Suryachandra Rao (supra) is reproduced as under: Fraud" and collusion vitiate even the most solemn proceedings in any civilised system of jurisprudence. It is concept descriptive of human conduct. Michael Levi likens a fraudster to Milton's scorcerer, Comus, who exulted in his ability to, 'wing me into the easy-hearted man and trap him into snares'. It has been defined as an act of trickery or deceit. In Webster's Third New International Dictionary "fraud" is equity has been defined as an act or omission to act or concealment by which one person obtains an advantage against conscience over another or which equity or public policy forbids as being prejudicial to another. In Black's Law Dictionary, "fraud" is defined as an intentional perversion of truth for the purpose of inducing another in reliance upon it to part with some valuable thing belonging to him or surrender a legal right. A false representation of a matter of fact, whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed, which deceives and is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury. In Concise Oxford Dictionary, it has been defined as criminal deception, use of false representation to gain unjust advantage ; dishonest artifice or trick. In Concise Oxford Dictionary, it has been defined as criminal deception, use of false representation to gain unjust advantage ; dishonest artifice or trick. According to Halsbury's Laws of England, a representation is deemed to have been false, and therefore, a misrepresentation, if it was at the material date false in substance and in fact, Section 17 of the Contract Act, 1872, defines "fraud" as an act committed by a party to a contract with the intent to deceive another. From dictionary meaning or even otherwise fraud arises out of a deliberate active role of the representator about a fact, which he knows to be untrue yet he succeeds in misleading the representee by making him believe it to be true. The representation to become fraudulent must be of fact with the knowledge that it was false. In a leading English case, i.e., Derry v. Peek, what constitutes "fraud" was described thus: (All ER p. 22 B-C) "[F]raud is proved when it is shown that a false representation has been made (i) knowingly, or (ii) without belief in its truth, or (iii) recklessly, careless whether it be true or false. But "fraud" in public law is not the same as "fraud" in private law. Nor can the ingredients, which establish "fraud" in commercial transaction, be of the assistance in determining fraud in administrative law. It has been aptly observed by Lord Bridge in Khawaja v. Secy. of State for Home Deptt. That it is dangerous to introduce maxims of common law as it effect of fraud while determining fraud in relation to statutory law, "Fraud" in relation to statute must be a colourable transaction to evade the provisions of a statute. If a statute has been passed for some one particular purpose a court of law will not countenance any attempt which may be made to extent the operation of the Act to something else which is quite foreign to its object and beyond its scope. Present day concept of fraud on statute has veered round abuse of power or mala fide exercise of power. It may arise due to overstepping the limits of power or defeating the provision of statute by adopting subterfuge or the power may be exercised for extraneous or irrelevant considerations. The colour of fraud in public law or administrative law, as it is developing, is assuming different shades. It may arise due to overstepping the limits of power or defeating the provision of statute by adopting subterfuge or the power may be exercised for extraneous or irrelevant considerations. The colour of fraud in public law or administrative law, as it is developing, is assuming different shades. It arises from a deception committed by disclosure of incorrect facts knowingly and deliberately to invoke exercise of power and procure an order from an authority or Tribunal. It must result in exercise of jurisdiction which otherwise would not have been exercised. That is misrepresentation must be in relation to the conditions provided in a section on existence or non-existence of which power can be exercised. But non-disclosure of a fact not required by a stature to be disclosed may not amount to fraud. Even in commercial transactions non-disclosure of every fact does not vitiate the agreement. 'In a contract every person must look for himself and ensures that he acquires the information necessary to avoid bad bargain.' In public law the duty is not to deceive." (See Shrisht Dhawan v. Shaw Bros., SCC p. 554, para 20) In view of settled proposition of law since at the face of record substantial number of candidates have been deprived from their rightful claim on account of increase or decrease, addition or subtraction of marks, it amount to commission of fraud. As held by Hon'ble Supreme Court fraud vitiates entire proceeding. Fraud and justness never dwel together. In the present case keeping in view the factual discussion made in the preceding paragraphs the entire selection seems to sham and farce hence vitiates. While considering identical controversy in a case Dinesh Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and Additional Commissioner (Administration), Meerut Division, (2006) 1 AWC 787 the entire selection was set aside by this Court on account of commission of fraud. 22. So far as the argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the Respondents that since the Petitioners appeared in the examination, they have got no right to challenge the selection in question, seems to be not sustainable. While considering the dispute relating to selection and appointment, after considering various Apex Court judgments, I have occasion to hold that in case any illegality is committed during the course of selection process, the candidates have right to take shelter of prerogative writs for judicial review of the action taken by the authorities. While considering the dispute relating to selection and appointment, after considering various Apex Court judgments, I have occasion to hold that in case any illegality is committed during the course of selection process, the candidates have right to take shelter of prerogative writs for judicial review of the action taken by the authorities. The case has been reported in Suraj Singh Vs. The State of U.P., The Director General and Inspector General of Police and The Commandant, 28th Battalion, (2007) 5 AWC 5130 . Similar question of law has been set at rest in one another case decided by judgment and order dated 23.5.2007 passed in Writ Petition No. 9786 (S/S) of 2006 ; Constable Mamta Yadav and Ors. v. State of U. P. and others, Writ Petition No. 9786 (S/S) of 2006 23. Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case in Raj Kumar and Others Vs. Shakti Raj and Others, AIR 1997 SC 2110 , held that where Government commits glaring procedural illegalities during an examination or test then principle of estoppel by conduct or acquiescence shall not apply. Relevant portion from the judgment of Raj Kumar (supra), is reproduced as under: The entire procedure is also obviously illegal. It is true, as contended by Shri Madhava Reddy, that this Court in Madan Lal v. State of J&K and others decisions referred therein had held that a candidate having taken a chance to appear in an interview and having remained unsuccess-ful, cannot turn round and challenge either the constitution of the Selection Board or the method of selection as being illegal ; he is estopped to question the correctness of the selection. But in his case, the Government have committed glaring illegalities in the procedure to get the candidates for examination under the 1955 Rules, so also in the method of selection and exercise of the power in taking out from the purview of the Board and also conduct of the selection in accordance with the Rules. Therefore, the principle of estoppeal by conduct or acquiescence has no application to the facts in this case. 24. In a case in R. Tamilmani Vs. Union of India and others, AIR 1992 SC 1120 , the Supreme Court upheld the procedure relating to grant of quality point marks by the individual member of Selection Committee and thereafter to form final opinion on the basis of aggregate marks. 25. 24. In a case in R. Tamilmani Vs. Union of India and others, AIR 1992 SC 1120 , the Supreme Court upheld the procedure relating to grant of quality point marks by the individual member of Selection Committee and thereafter to form final opinion on the basis of aggregate marks. 25. In a case in Pritpal Singh and others Vs. State of Haryana and others, AIR 1995 SC 414 where the selection held for appointment in the police department of State of Harayana was in controversy, their Lordships of Apex Court found that there was blank space in the mark sheet and it was held that vast gap is suggestive of intention to manipulate the select list in a number of instalments. Relevant portion from the judgment of Pritpal Singh (supra) is reproduced as under: 14. From the record produced by the Board it appears that very large sheets of paper with the names of the candidates and their qualifications, etc., typed thereon were placed before the members of the Board who interviewed them. Upon these sheets of paper there are large blanks, in that no notation has been made with regard to many candidates one after the other in serial order. Such notations as there are in pencil and they do not always indicate how the candidates had fared. Alongwith these very large sheets of paper there is a small strip of paper relating to the only candidate who, for some reason, was interviewed on 3.9.1989. This strip of paper shows the final assessment of the candidate at the interview. There is no corresponding tabulation produced in respect of the candidates who appeared on the earlier dates of interviews. In other words, there is no tabulation of the final marks awarded to these candidates at the interview.... 16. We have mentioned that there was one candidate who was interviewed singly on 3.9.1989 and that the strip of paper showing the final marks secured by him at the interview has been produced. That sheet shows that the candidate had secured 20 marks at the interview but the marks sheet referred to above shows that that candidate had secured eighteen and a half marks at the interview. 17. That sheet shows that the candidate had secured 20 marks at the interview but the marks sheet referred to above shows that that candidate had secured eighteen and a half marks at the interview. 17. For all these reasons, taken together, we are satisfied that the selection made by the Board was not objective and a fair and must be quashed alongwith the appointments made by the State Government consequent thereto. In Kiran Gupta and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others Etc., AIR 2000 SC 3299 their Lordships of Apex Court though upheld the overall evaluation of a candidate rather than awarding of marks of each item as lawful but it was held on the ground that members of the commission who interviewed the candidates awarded marks in lump-sum but separately after evaluating the merit of the candidate keeping in view the various factors. (Paras 30 and 31) 26. In one another case in Union of India and Others Vs. O. Chakradhar, AIR 2002 SC 1119 the Supreme Court held that where irregularities committed during the course of selection are so widespread and all pervasive, affecting the result, so as to make it difficult to pick out the persons who have been unlawfully benefited or wrongfully deprived of their selection, it shall not be necessary to issue show-cause notice to each and every selectee. In such situation the only way is to cancel the entire result. The intermixing of illegalities and irregularities coupled with substantial arbitrariness shall be sufficient to cancel the entire result without following the principle of audi alteram partem (no man should be condemned unheard). It means in such situation it shall not be necessary to comply with the principles of natural justice as it shall be futile exercise of power. Relevant portion from the judgment of O. Chakradhar (supra) is reproduced as under: 8. In our view the nature and the extent of illegalities and irregularities committed in conducting a selection will have to be scrutinized in each case so as to come to a conclusion about future course of action to be adopted in the matter. Relevant portion from the judgment of O. Chakradhar (supra) is reproduced as under: 8. In our view the nature and the extent of illegalities and irregularities committed in conducting a selection will have to be scrutinized in each case so as to come to a conclusion about future course of action to be adopted in the matter. If the mischief played is so widespread and all-pervasive, affecting the result, so as to make it difficult to pick out the persons who have been unlawfully benefited or wrongfully deprived of their selection, in such cases it will neither be possible nor necessary to issue individual show-cause notices to each selectee. The only way out would be to cancel the whole selection. Motive behind the irregularities committed also has its relevance.... 12. ...In such circumstances it may not be possible to pick out or choose a few persons in respect of whom alone the selection could be cancelled and their services in pursuance thereof could be terminated. The illegality and irregularity are so intermixed with the whole process of the selection that it becomes impossible to sort out the right from the wrong or vice versa. The result of such a selection cannot be relied or acted upon.... 27. In one another case in Ram Chandra Singh Vs. Savitri Devi and Others, (2003) 8 SCC 319 Apex Court held that where a judgment and decree has been obtained by practising fraud on Court, it is trite that principle of res judicta shall not apply. Fraud vitiates every solemn act. Fraud and justice never dwell together. Fraud is a conduct either by letters or words. 28. In a case in Inder Parkash Gupta Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others, (2004) 6 SCC 786 the Apex Court reaffirmed the earlier principle that where allocation of marks for interview is done in such a manner, which is capable of being abused or misused in its exercise, it is liable to be struck down as ultra vires of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Though in the absence of statutory procedure authorities are competent to follow its own procedure but it is subject to condition that same is not hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. (Paras 34 and 35). 29. In a case in Biswa Ranjan Sahoo and others Vs. Though in the absence of statutory procedure authorities are competent to follow its own procedure but it is subject to condition that same is not hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. (Paras 34 and 35). 29. In a case in Biswa Ranjan Sahoo and others Vs. Sushanta Kumar Dinda and Others, AIR 1996 SC 2552 where during the course of selection it was found that answer books of various successful candidates show upwards alteration of marks at several places and tabulation showing downwards alteration of marks. It was held that in such cases of mass malpractice the selection can be nullified without issuing notices to the persons selected or appointed in pursuance to such selection. 30. In a case in Union of India (UOI) and Others Vs. Rajesh P.U., Puthuvalnikathu and Another, AIR 2003 SC 4222 the Apex Court ruled that in case it is possible to weed out the beneficiaries of irregularities or illegalities then it shall not be justifiable to deny appointment to those candidates whose selection are not vitiated in any manner. In block cancellation of selection may not be proper and desirable. However, in case there appears to be widespread infirmities of all pervasive nature undermining the selection process, the selection may be cancelled to its entirety. 31. In one another case in Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission Vs. Navnit Kumar Potdar and another, AIR 1995 SC 77 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where selection is solely based on interview it is necessary to fix limit of candidates to be called for interview on some rational and objective basis. Relevant portion from the judgment of Navnit Kumar Potdar (supra) is reproduced as under: 6. ...But where the selection is to be made only on the basis of interview, the Commission or the Selection Board can adopt any rational procedure to fix the number of candidates who should be called for interview. It has been impressed by the Courts from time to time that where selections are to be made only on the basis of interview, then such interview/viva voce tests must be carried out in a thorough and scientific manner in order to arrive at a fair and satisfactory evaluation of the personality of the candidate.... 8. The sole purpose of holding interview is to search and select the best among the applicants. 8. The sole purpose of holding interview is to search and select the best among the applicants. It is obvious that it would be impossible to carry out a satisfactory viva voce test if large number of candidates are interviewed each day till all the applicants who had been found to be eligible on the basis of the criteria and qualifications prescribed are interviewed. If large number of applicants are called for interview in respect of four posts, the interview is then bound to be casual and superficial because of the time constraint. The members of the Commission shall not be in a position to assess properly the candidates who appear before them for interview. It appears that Union Public Service Commission has also fixed a ratio for calling the candidates for interview with reference to number of available vacancies.... 13. ...As we have already pointed out that where the selection is to be made purely on the basis of interview, if the applications for such posts are enormous in number with reference to the number of posts available to be filled up, then the Commission or the Selection Board has no option but to short-list such applicants on some rational and reasonable basis. In the present case without any short-listing of candidates all were called for interview and each candidate was provided less than two minutes seems to be superfluous act on the part of the authorities. 32. Keeping in view the mandate of Apex Court in the cases referred and discussed hereinabove, at the face of record, it appears that entire selection was farce and sham. The interview was held without short-listing of the candidates in view of law laid down by Apex Court in the case of O. Chakradhar (supra). No reasonable time was advocated to each candidate during the course of interview which may inspire confidence. There appears to be commission of fraud by the authorities with intention to extend undue advantage to certain candidates. Marks of interview granted by the Members were not correctly and properly recorded in the sheets is itself indicative of the fact that Members of Selection Board have not acted in just and fair manner. As settled by Apex Court fraud vitiates every solemn act. Marks of interview granted by the Members were not correctly and properly recorded in the sheets is itself indicative of the fact that Members of Selection Board have not acted in just and fair manner. As settled by Apex Court fraud vitiates every solemn act. The truth and untruth have been so intermixed that there is no option except to set aside the entire selection and its outcome keeping in view the law laid down in the case of Rajesh P.U. (supra). 33. Though all the selectees have been impleaded in the present proceeding during the course of hearing but it appears that few of them have not been served. Keeping in view the law settled by Apex Court in the cases referred hereinabove it shall not be fatal since legalities and illegalities have been so intermixed, it is not possible to segregate legally entitled persons except to set aside the entire selection keeping in view the law laid down by Apex Court in the case of Rajesh P.U. (supra). 34. So far as the other submission made by Respondents' counsel that Petitioners have not established their case, seems to be misconceived. While approaching this Court the Petitioners have categorically stated that appointments have been done for extraneous reasons and considerations. Unqualified candidates have been selected on account of political interference by manipulating the entire selection process. The ground raised by the Petitioners have been found to be true keeping in view the factual finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer. So far as the mala fides are concerned, since the Petitioners have not impleaded the persons against whom mala fides have been alleged, no finding can be recorded on the question of mala fides. However, keeping in view the address given by some of the candidates in the application forms, referred in the preceding paragraphs, there appears to be smell of foul play during the course of selection process but no one can be imputed and accordingly no finding is recorded in the absence of specific pleading and impleadment of necessary parties. 35. However, keeping in view the address given by some of the candidates in the application forms, referred in the preceding paragraphs, there appears to be smell of foul play during the course of selection process but no one can be imputed and accordingly no finding is recorded in the absence of specific pleading and impleadment of necessary parties. 35. Undoubtedly, this Court does not sit in appeal over the decision taken by the Selection Committee but once it has been found that fraud has been committed, marks have been changed or incorrectly recorded or marks have been increased or decreased, this Court has got ample power to judicially review the action of the authorities in view of the judgment of Raj Kumar (supra) and other judgments. Right to livelihood is a fundamental right secured by Article 1 of the Constitution of India. Appointment and selection must be done with fairness and transparency. In case a selection is done under the garb of secrecy in a hasty manner with commission of fraud or manipulation this Court while exercising jurisdiction under prerogative writs has got ample power to judicially review the outcome of selection process. 36. From the facts and circumstances which emerge from the material on record it appears that since the selection in question was exclusively based on oral interview, it has given opportunity to the authorities to select the candidates of their own choice in an unfair and unjustifiable manner. Keeping in view the growing unemployment and acute shortage of vacancies in every cadre, it shall be appropriate that State Government should ponder over the situation and take necessary steps by framing guidelines, rules and regulations so that appointments should not be done exclusively on the basis of interview. The Government must lay down certain guidelines by framing rules and regulations for short-listing of the candidates in case under compelling reasons the selection is held exclusively on the basis of interview keeping in view the letter and spirit of Apex Court's judgment in the case of Navnit Kumar Potdar (supra). Calling of 10,000 or more candidates for interview seems to be superfluous action giving liberty to authorities to select candidates possessing inferior merit which affects purity of system. Appointments relating to class IV or class III employees should be done in a just and fair manner in accordance to law without being influenced by higher ups. Calling of 10,000 or more candidates for interview seems to be superfluous action giving liberty to authorities to select candidates possessing inferior merit which affects purity of system. Appointments relating to class IV or class III employees should be done in a just and fair manner in accordance to law without being influenced by higher ups. It shall be appropriate that even for class IV or class III employees of local bodies, a Centralize Recruitment Board should be constituted guided by specific rules and regulations with minimum option to authorities to choose a member of the selection committee of their own choice to facilitate induction of unmeritorious candidates in Government services. 37. In view of discussions made hereinabove the entire selection process adopted by the Respondents to fill up the vacancies in question seems to be farce and sham. No reasonable person shall believe that the selection was held in just and fair manner. The members of the Selection Committee seem to have acted for extraneous reasons without adhering to fairness in action. It shall be appropriate that the Government should hold an enquiry and take appropriate action in accordance to law against the persons who were responsible to fill up the vacancies in question. It shall be further appropriate that to minimise the abuse of power by the authorities the vacancies in question should be filled up by written as well as oral interview. 38. The writ petition deserved to be allowed with cost. Keeping in view the law settled by Apex Court in the case of Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu Vs. Union of India (UOI), AIR 2005 SC 3353 it is a fit case where cost should be imposed. Writ petition is allowed. A writ in the nature of certiorari is issued quashing the impugned select list dated 7.11.2006/9.11.2006 with consequential benefits. A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding the opposite parties to fill up the vacancies in question by fresh advertisement in accordance to law expeditiously. Cost quantifies to Rs. 25,000 which shall be deposited in this Court within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. The Petitioner shall be entitled to withdraw an amount of Rs. 15,000 and rest Rs. 10,000 shall be relegated to account for payment of dues to amicus-curie. Cost quantifies to Rs. 25,000 which shall be deposited in this Court within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. The Petitioner shall be entitled to withdraw an amount of Rs. 15,000 and rest Rs. 10,000 shall be relegated to account for payment of dues to amicus-curie. Records shall be returned after the lapse of statutory period of appeal. Writ Petition is allowed accordingly.