JUDGMENT By the Court.—This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by four petitioners, who are candidates in the selection for the post of constable civil police held in the year 2005 in the State of U.P., challenging the order dated 21st April, 2008, passed by respondent No.1, Annexure-2 to the writ petition. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondents 2 to 5 and Union of India through the counsel. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that they are deeply anguished due to inaction on the part of respondents 1 and 2 in curbing the malpractices which occurred in the selection process of the constables of Civil Police/P.A.C./Radio Police in the State of U.P. The petitioners have challenged their exclusion from the selection for the post of constable in the year 2005 and denied by respondent No.1 to direct the holding of the investigation by C.B.I. in the malpractices in conducting the selection aforesaid. 4. By the notification dated 6th January, 2005, which has been amended by notification dated 21st January, 2005 for recruitment of civil police constables in State of U.P., 6091 vacancies was advertised by U.P. Police Head Quarter on 23rd July, 2005. Similar identical notification was published on 7th April, 2006 for 5296 vacancies and vide notification dated 4th June, 2006 for 6237 vacancies. It is further asserted by the petitioners that on 6th February, 2005, 10th April, 2006 and 23rd September, 2006, certain instructions/guidelines were issued by the Police Head Quarter, Allahabad for governing the respective recruitment process of constables (Civil Police) and these instructions contained detailed guidelines in respect of the schedule of recruitment and eligibility criteria of recruitment. The aforesaid guidelines prescribed the detailed procedure for preparation of one main register in which the marks obtained by the candidates for each item, such as written examination and interview etc. should be shown. It is further provided that the candidates, who had not qualified the physical eligibility test will not be entitled for written examination and for written examination it was compulsory for the candidate to obtain 50 per cent marks in each event of physical eligibility test and after awarding the marks the examiner will put the signature and mark the seal and the same will be sent under sealed cover to the Chairman of Selection Committee. 5. 5. During the selection process a number of complaints were made by the candidates as well as representatives of public regarding grave irregularities and malpractices. The complaint in respect to different recruitment centres were also given to the concerned officials of different districts. It is so happened that certain complaints were received in the office of Chief Minister, U.P. sent by Sri Mohd. Irshad Khan; Sri R.P. Jaiswal; Sri Radhey Lal Rawat and Sri Amresh Shukla (all members of Legislative Assembly, U.P.). On receipt of the aforesaid complaint, the State Government issued direction to Director General of Police U.P. to enquire into the allegations. In pursuant thereto a four member committee headed by Sri Shailja Kant Mishra, Additional Director General of Police was constituted to enquire into the charges of illegalities, corruption, nepotism, procedural irregularities and violations of Rules and instructions issued by the Headquarters by the Director General of Police, U.P. dated 13th June, 2007. The enquiry committee proceeded to conduct inquiry in respect of procedure and work of the Selection Committee, such as (1) physical efficiency text; (2) written examination; (3) interview and (4) tabulation work. This enquiry committee found that there were clear cut violation of recruitment instructions at large scale and irregularities and illegalities such as : (1) Marks of physical eligibility test were altered and added by the examiner in mark sheet. (2) All those answer book of the written examination in which chest number and identification marks were mentioned by the candidate, found to have been checked and declared passed by the selection committee. (3) The evaluation wrongly done by the examiner and alteration of the marks in the answer book. (4) The hand writing of the names slip of the answer book and hand writing in the answer book both are different and some answer are written in different hand writing. (5) In 108 copies of the written examination the extra marks were given by the examiner without any basis and all those candidates were declared passed. It is further submitted that if these extra marks are reduced then the candidate become failed. No merit list was prepared by the selection committee. The over writing on marks made in the answer book were neither signed by the examiner and nor counter signed by the Chairman of selection committee. It is further submitted that if these extra marks are reduced then the candidate become failed. No merit list was prepared by the selection committee. The over writing on marks made in the answer book were neither signed by the examiner and nor counter signed by the Chairman of selection committee. (6) There is no signature of the candidate in the mark sheet of physical eligibility test and some of the candidate declared passed without appearing in the physical eligibility test." 6. After receiving the report submitted by the enquiry committee, the State Government annulled the selection held at 42 centers and passed cancellation order dated 11th September, 2007 by which the selection of 14 recruitment centers was cancelled and by 18th September, 2007, the State Government further cancelled selection of 10 recruitment centers and lastly by order dated 30th September, 2007 selection of 18 recruitment centers has been cancelled. The committee headed by Sri Shailja Kant Mishra in its report mentioned that procedural instructions and rules were not followed and malpractices and forgery were committed by the selection boards. This enquiry committee apart from recommending cancellation of entire selection also recommended for initiation of criminal proceedings against all those who were responsible to pollute the selection process and to start departmental action against the erring officers. The State Government accepted the enquiry report as stated above and also registered criminal cases against the erring officers and departmental proceeding was also initiated against the responsible persons. 7. The State Government apart from taking the aforesaid steps has further in order to find out the realities of allegations in respect of the selections in question constituted a high level committee headed by Chief Secretary of State under the orders of the cabinet. The Chief Secretary submitted its report before the Cabinet and has recommended handing over the case to the C.B.I. for detailed investigation. The copy of request letter of the State Government dated 4th February, 2008 is annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The Anti Corruption Organization, U.P. has submitted its report to the State Government which reveals certain glaring and alarming facts which clearly indicates that the entire selection was covered with forgery and was farce. The copy of request letter of the State Government dated 4th February, 2008 is annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The Anti Corruption Organization, U.P. has submitted its report to the State Government which reveals certain glaring and alarming facts which clearly indicates that the entire selection was covered with forgery and was farce. The investigating agency submitted its report in case crime No. 1626 of 2007 on 16th April, 2008 before the State Government with the request to grant sanction for initiation of criminal proceedings in the court. In its report the agency had submitted charge-sheet against erring officers, namely Sri B.B. Bakshi, Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jhansi and the members of selection committee, namely Sri Ramesh, Additional Superintendent of Police, Mau, Sri Sushil Kumar Shukla, Assistant Commandant 33rd Battalion, P.A.C., Jhansi, Sri Akhlaq Ahmad Khan, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kanpur Nagar, Sri Harinath Yadav, Deputy Superintendent of Police. All these officers were found involved in the offence and the charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 13(1)(D), read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. These officers were involved in the malpractices relating to Gorakhpur recruitment center, wherein identical and similar illegalities were committed on almost all the cancelled centers which were tented with corruption such as : "(i) Several examination sheets were not in the hand writing of the candidates as has been confirmed by the forensic experts in its report. (ii) Several examination sheets were written by Mr. Sushil Kumar Shukla, Deputy Superintendent of Police, who also happened to be one of the member of the recruitment board. (iii) The investigating agency found that one of the members of the recruitment board Mr. Sushil Kumar Shukla while examining the written examination sheet had himself written answers to facilitate illegal selection of several candidates. The investigating agency has also concluded that Mr. Sushil Kumar Shukla thus acted as part of criminal conspiracy to promote illegal selection. (iv) In several written examination sheets, correction were made in the given answer by Sri Akhlaq Ahmad, Deputy Superintendent of Police and Sri Sushil Kumar Shukla, Deputy Superintendent of Police and other fellow members of the recruitment board so that the candidates may get undue advantage. This fact again has been corroborated by the hand writing experts of the forensic lab. This fact again has been corroborated by the hand writing experts of the forensic lab. (v) The final mark sheet was tampered with and wrong entries were made therein to facilitate selection of several candidates. In all 34 candidates who were not eligible to be selected got selected because the final mark sheet containing the marks for physical examination were deliberately increased as part of a criminal conspiracy. (vi) As per instructions governing the examination, chairman should remain physically present on the site of examination but the investigating agency has detected on the basis of available authentic records that Chairman namely Sri B.B. Bakshi was not physically present during the physical test, written examination and also during the interview. A copy of the car diaries of Mr. B.B. Bakshi is being enclosed, a perusal whereof would reveal that during the course and the time of examination, he made a visit not only to far distant places in the district but to Lucknow also. (vii) The checking of copies were not carried out at the designated place and forgeries were committed in a well organized manner at the camp office of the Chairman of the recruitment board against the rules and instructions governing the examination. (viii) That in its conclusion the investigating agency has found Mr. B.B. Bakshi, Chairman of the recruitment board, Mr. Ramesh, Additional Superintendent of Police, Mr. Sushil Kumar Shukla, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mr. Akhlakh Ahmad, Deputy Superintendent of Police and Mr. Harinath Yadav, Deputy Superintendent of Police, criminally guilty and has sought to launch prosecution against them under Section 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. (ix) The investigating agency has also concluded that the Chairman and the members of the board criminally colluded to ensure the selection of ineligible candidates." 8. That the investigating agency submitted its report in case crime No. 435 of 2007 on 29.4.2008 before the State Government with the request to grant sanction for initiation of criminal proceedings in the court. (ix) The investigating agency has also concluded that the Chairman and the members of the board criminally colluded to ensure the selection of ineligible candidates." 8. That the investigating agency submitted its report in case crime No. 435 of 2007 on 29.4.2008 before the State Government with the request to grant sanction for initiation of criminal proceedings in the court. In its report the agency had submitted charge-sheet against erring officers namely Sri Akhilesh Mehrotra, the then Deputy Inspector General of Police, Allahabad Region, Allahabad and Chairman Selection Board and the members of the Selection Committee namely Sri Surendra Bahadur, the then Additional Superintendent of Police, Reserve Police Line, Sitapur, Sri Arun Kumar Gupta, the then Additional Superintendent of Police, Siddharthnagar, Sri Mannaj Lal, the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, Allahabad and Mohd. Irfan Ansari, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Uttar Pradesh Police Headquarters, Allahabad. All these officers were found involved in the offence and the charge sheet was submitted under Sections 419/420/467/468/469/471/120B/341, IPVC and Section 7/12/13 Prevention of Corruption Act. It is relevant to point out here that all these officers were involved in the malpractices relating to Etawah Recruitment Center (Third Recruitment) in the recruitment held in the year 2006. 9. That the investigating agency submitted its report in case crime No. 430 of 2007 on 29.4.2008 before the State Government with the request to grant sanction for initiation of criminal proceedings in the court. In its report the agency had submitted charge-sheet against erring officers namely Sri Daljeet Singh Chaudhary, the then Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kanpur Region, Kanpur and Chairman Selection Board and the members Sri Mahendra Yadav, the then Superintendent of Police, Sitapur, Sri Ajit Kumar Sinha, the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, Faizabad, Sri Mansha Ram Gautam, the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, Aligarh and Sri Amarjeet Singh Shahi, the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, Shahjahanpur. All these officers were found involved in the offence and the charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 467/468/471/120B, IPC and Section 13(1)(D) read with 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act. It is relevant to point out here that all these officers were involved in the malpractices relating to Kanpur Dehat Recruitment Center (Second Recruitment) in the recruitment held in the year 2006. 10. It is relevant to point out here that all these officers were involved in the malpractices relating to Kanpur Dehat Recruitment Center (Second Recruitment) in the recruitment held in the year 2006. 10. That the investigating agency submitted its report in case crime No. 2243 of 2007 on 30.4.2008 before the State Government with the request to grant sanction for initiation of criminal proceedings in the court. In its report the agency had submitted charge-sheet against erring officers, namely, Sri K. Satyanarayan, IPS, presently posted as Commandant 34th Bn. PAC Varanasi and Chairman Selection Board and Sri Ram Bahadur Yadav, Additional Superintendent of Police, ISBF Chandauli, Varanasi, Sri Diwakar Kumar Additional Superintendent of Police, Mahoba, Sri Piyush Ranjan Srivastava, Deputy Superintendent of Police, District Kushinagar and Sri Akhlaq Ahmad, Deputy Superintendent of Police (Retired). All these officers were found involved in the offence and the charge-sheet was submitted under sections 467/468/471/120B and Section 13(1)(D) read with 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act. It is relevant to point out here that all these officers were involved in the malpractices relating to Mainpuri Recruitment Center (First Recruitment) in the recruitment held in the year 2005. 11. That the investigating agency submitted its report in case crime No. 1470 of 2007 on 30.4.2008 before the State Government with the request to grant sanction for initiation of criminal proceedings in the court. In its report the agency had submitted charge-sheet against erring officers namely Sri Ramendra Vikram Singh IPS, Deputy Inspector General of Police and Chairman Selection Board, Sri Manoj Kumar Sonkar, Additional Superintendent of Police, Hardoi, Sri Om Prakash Yadav, Deputy Superintendent of Police Vigilance Organization, Lucknow, Sri Rameshwar Dayal Pathak, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Badaun, Sri Abdul Jabbar Khan, Deputy Superintendent of Police (Retired). All these officers were found involved in the offence and the charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 467/468/471/120B, IPC and section 13(1)(D) read with 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act. It is relevant to point out here that all these officers were involved in the malpractices relating to Moradabad Recruitment Center (Second Recruitment) in the recruitment held in the year 2006. 12. That the investigating agency submitted its report in case crime No. 2244 of 2007 on 18.1.2008 before the State Government with the request to grant sanction for initiation of criminal proceedings in the court. 12. That the investigating agency submitted its report in case crime No. 2244 of 2007 on 18.1.2008 before the State Government with the request to grant sanction for initiation of criminal proceedings in the court. In its report the agency had submitted charge-sheet against erring officers namely Sri Mukul Goel IPS, Deputy Inspector General of Police, ITBP, New Delhi and Chairman Selection Board and the members of the Selection Board namely, Sri Shiv Sagar Singh, Additional Superintendent of Police, (R) Information Bureau, Moradabad, Sri Prahlad Singh Yadav, Deputy Superintendent of Police, PTC Moradabad, Sri Hafizurram, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Hardoi, Sri Sukhbir Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police Lucknow. All these officers were found involved in the offence and the charge sheet was submitted under sections 467/468/471/120B, IPC and Section 13(1)(D) read with 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act. It is relevant to point out here that all these officers were involved in the malpractices relating to Mainpuri Recruitment Center (Third Recruitment) in the recruitment held in the year 2006. 13. That in spite of the full knowledge of the fact that whole selection process involving recruitment on more than 18000 posts has been tainted with nepotism, favouritism and rampant corruption, the State Government has revoked the suspension orders of the erring officers and reinstated them on lucrative posts. This has been done by the State Government even on the face of the admission that these persons are guilty and also acceptance of guilt in writing by the official themselves. 14. That ultimately the State Government made a formal request to respondent No.1 to get the investigation conducted by C.B.I. into all the cases registered in different districts of Uttar Pradesh relating to the recruitment of constables of U.P. Police and U.P. PAC and different posts in Radio Wing of U.P. Police in the year 2005-06.The respondent No. 1, namely, Union of India vide order dated 21.4.2008 has formally refused to get the enquiry conducted by the C.B.I. on the pretext of non-availability of substantive manpower and resources. It further gives the reason that the agency is over burden and it is not feasible to get the investigation conducted of such a large number of cases. A true copy of the order dated 21.4.2008 is attached to the writ petition and marked as Annexure 2. 15. It further gives the reason that the agency is over burden and it is not feasible to get the investigation conducted of such a large number of cases. A true copy of the order dated 21.4.2008 is attached to the writ petition and marked as Annexure 2. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Union of India and the State Government are hand in gloves with each other in shielding the erring officers and consequentially supporting the candidates who had entered into the services by adopting unfair means. The State Government has delayed in making the request of C.B.I. investigation to the respondent No.1 intentionally with a view to lighten the gravity of the matter and in turn the respondent No. 1 has shirked from its responsibility by refusing the enquiry on non-existing grounds. Thus, this writ petition. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also filed supplementary affidavit annexing therewith the relevant documents, which have been referred to and relied upon by the petitioners and the copies whereof could not be filed along with the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that this police recruitment scam at such a large scale and refusal by the respondents to investigate, particularly on the flimsy ground mentioned in the order deserves to be quashed and the direction be issued to respondent No. 2 to conduct the enquiry expeditiously. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a decision in the case of State of Bihar and another v. Ranchi Zila Samta Party and another, J.T. 1996 (3) S.C. 751, wherein on a similar direction by the High Court in the case of Gwala Scam, the matter was taken up by the State Government to the Apex Court against the direction issued by the High Court. 17. The main argument advanced by the State Government in the case of State of Bihar (supra), which has been repelled by the Apex Court by reason of Entry 80 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution and Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Act, 1946, without the consent of the appropriate State Government no investigating agency other than the State police could investigate an offence committed in the State. The High Court while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution, should have kept in mind this limitation. 18. The High Court while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution, should have kept in mind this limitation. 18. On the basis of the aforesaid decision, it has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that the State Government itself should have investigated the matter and should not have requested the C.B.I. to investigate the matter, therefore refusal by the respondents to proceed with the investigation by C.B.I. cannot be called in question. In the present case, since the State Government itself had requested the respondents to get the matter investigated through C.B.I., therefore it is open to the respondents to say that since C.B.I. is over burden and with limited manpower, they cannot investigate this matter. This in fact according to learned counsel for the petitioners amounts to refusal of exercising power. The direction issued by the High Court for investigation by the C.B.I. to the scam has been upheld by the Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar (supra), which reads thus : ".................The parameters of the power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to direct an investigation by the C.B.I. though without the consent of the concerned State, is the subject matter of reference pending consideration of a Constitution Bench of five Judges of this court. Therefore, the frontiers of the power of the High Court under Article 226 to give directions to the C.B.I. to investigate into offences without the States consent, are already before this Court and shall be gone into." 19. However, in the present case since the State Government itself has made a request for investigation by the C.B.I., therefore this objection of C.B.I. would not apply and this argument is not open to the respondents. From the above law laid down by the Apex Court it appears that the view taken by the respondent No. 2 not to proceed/depute the C.B.I. for investigation in this scam, the matter cannot be sustained. 20. Learned counsel for the petitioners further relied upon a decision in the case of State of West Bengal and others v. Sampat Lal and others, A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 195. 20. Learned counsel for the petitioners further relied upon a decision in the case of State of West Bengal and others v. Sampat Lal and others, A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 195. Relying upon the aforesaid decision in the case of State of West Bengal (supra), learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the order Annexure-2 to the writ petition passed by the respondent No.2 deserves to be quashed and a direction be issued to the respondent No. 2 to conduct the investigation as requested by the State Government. 21. On the other hand, the counsel for Union of India submitted that the power under the Delhi Police Special Establishment Act are discretionary, the High Court should not thrust upon its direction to get the matter investigated through the agency of C.B.I., particularly when the matter is under investigation by the State Government. The counsel has agreed that since there is no dispute of the fact and further that the matter has to be decided on the basis of reasons given in the impugned order even the filling of the counter affidavit will not improve the case of the respondent as this court will not look into the files or noting or go into the statement made in the counter affidavit other than what is stated in the impugned order. The reasons given by the respondents to refuse to conduct the investigation through C.B.I. are justified, but the similar argument has been repelled in the case of State of West Bengal (supra), which reads thus :- "On June 9, 1983, an oral prayer was made on behalf of the State of West Bengal for staying operation of the orders and on the following day an appeal was preferred against the order of Borooah, J. and the appeal was placed before a Division Bench consisting of Mr. Justice Pyne and Mr. Justice S.C. Sen. Grievance was made on behalf of the State of West Bengal that Borooah, J. had made his order without giving any notice to it and without finding out if the investigation conducted by the police authorities under the law was not adequate, and as to whether the manner of investigation was such that it required the Deputy Inspector General of the Central Bureau of Investigation at Calcutta to be appointed to enquire into the incident. At the appellate stage on behalf of the State Government materials were placed before the Court in support of its contention that adequate investigation had been undertaken a would be expected in the ordinary course over an incident of the type under consideration. Long arguments were advanced before the Division Bench and the two learned Judges devoted considerable attention to the matter and wrote out two separate and lengthy judgments--Pyne, J. held that : "I respectfully agree with the observations made by the Supreme Court in the facts and circumstances of the above case (Bhagwant Singh v. Commr. of Police, Delhi, (1983) 3 SCC 344 : ( AIR 1983 SC 826 ). I am also of the view that in the facts and circumstances of the instant case it would not be proper for me to speculate as to whether the unnatural death of the two boys was caused by suicide or murder. I am, however, very much concerned with the question whether the investigation into the cause of the unnatural death of the two boys by appellants is being conducted fairly and properly and after taking all materials, evidence and circumstances into consideration in accordance with law...........In the instant case the Deputy Inspector General, Central Bureau of Investigation is not called upon to exercise any power or to investigate into any matter under Delhi Special Police Establishment Act or any other statute. In view of what has been stated hereinbefore and in the fact and circumstances of the case, I appoint Deputy Inspector General, Central Bureau of Investigation as the Special Officer in this case. The Special Officer will make the enquiry about the correctness of the facts, allegations and inferences contained in the reports of Secret Eye dated 8th and 14th May, 1983, as well as those in the two letters of the respondents both dated 1st June, 1983, copies whereof are Annexures-A and B, respectively to the affidavit of Bappaditya Roy affirmed on 20th June, 1983 and in the reports affirmed on 20th June, 1983 and in the reports published in the two issues of Ananda Bazar Patrika dated May 12 and 18, 1983. I, therefore direct Deputy Inspector General, Central Bureau of Investigation to make necessary enquiry along the line aforesaid. I, therefore direct Deputy Inspector General, Central Bureau of Investigation to make necessary enquiry along the line aforesaid. For the purpose of making such enquiry and report Deputy Inspector General, Central Bureau of Investigation will be entitled to take into consideration fresh evidence, oral or documentary, materials and statements, if any, offered to him. The report of the Deputy Inspector General, Central Bureau of Investigation will be submitted to the trial Court within three weeks from date. The police authorities of the State and the respondents will extend all possible help as required by the Deputy Inspector General, Central Bureau of Investigation in the matter of enquiry." 22. The counsel for the respondent has also tried to raise the argument regarding the locus of petitioners to file this writ petition. 23. We have already stated the facts which shows that petitioners are unsuccessful candidates and are complainants regarding malpractices adopted in the impugned selection. We are therefore, of the opinion that locus of the petitioners cannot be questioned. 24. Thus, we are of the opinion, particularly in the facts and circumstances of the case that the State Government itself has made a request to get the investigation conducted by the C.B.I. and the refusal by the respondent No. 2 to conduct the investigation through C.B.I. cannot be sustained in law for the reasons stated in the impugned order and the order dated 21st April, 2008, Annexure-2 to the writ petition deserves to be quashed and is hereby quashed. 25. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 21st April, 2008, Annexure-2 to the writ petition is quashed. The respondent No. 1 and the C.B.I. are directed to investigate the matter as requested by the State Government vide order dated 4th February, 2008. ————