JUDGMENT [PER B.R. GAVAI,J.] : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally. The petitioners in both the petitions, who have succeeded in the written test held for the purpose of selection to the post of "Parichar" and who have been invited for the oral interviews, have filed the present petitions, challenging the order dated 10th March, 2008 passed by the respondent No.2 State of Maharashtra, thereby cancelling the entire selection process undertaken for appointment to the said post of "Parichar" and issuing further directions for holding a fresh selection process. 2. The facts in brief, giving rise to the present petition are as under :- That, an advertisement No.1/2006 was issued by the respondent Zilla Parishad, Beed for appointment of 143 posts of Parichar in the District Service Cadre - D. The applications were invited from various categories. In all 6941 candidates were held qualified for appearing for the written examination. Out of the 6941 candidates, 223 candidates were found eligible for oral interviews, including the petitioners. The merit list of the candidates was published on 10/6/2007 and they were called for oral interviews on 11/6/2007. After the oral interviews were held and the selection process had come to a near conclusion, a stay order was issued by the Desk Officer of the State of Maharashtra, Rural Development Department, thereby directing not to declare the final selection list in pursuance to the complaint dated 11/6/2002 received from the President, Zilla Parishad, Beed, alleging therein the malpractices committed during the examination. 3. An enquiry was directed to be held by the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad and the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad. A report came to be submitted by the Chief Officer of the Zilla Parishad, submitting therein that the entire selection process was transparent, confidential, secret and paramount consideration was given to the merits of the candidate without paying heed to the political interference and pressure. It was further stated that as the office bearers could not get their favoured candidates selected for the oral interview, they started to complain about the selection process. It appears that, thereafter a petition came to be filed before this court bearing W.P. No. 6881/2007, which came to be disposed of by this court vide order dated 8.1.2008, directing the State Government to take a final decision on the recruitment procedure within six months. 4. It appears that, thereafter a petition came to be filed before this court bearing W.P. No. 6881/2007, which came to be disposed of by this court vide order dated 8.1.2008, directing the State Government to take a final decision on the recruitment procedure within six months. 4. Another report came to be submitted by the Deputy Commissioner (Establishment) Aurangabad, coming to the conclusion that no material was available in the entire selection process regarding breach of the confidentiality or financial irregularities. However, the said authority recommended fresh selection process, so that there should not be any suspicion regarding the transparency of the selection process. On the basis of the said recommendations, an order came to be issued by the State of Maharashtra on 10/3/2008, thereby cancelling the selection process and directing steps to be taken for fresh selection process. Being aggrieved thereby, the present petitions. 5. Shri Talekar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submit that though the authorities of the State Government and Zilla Parishad have found that the entire selection process was transparent and unbiased, and that there was no material regarding the financial irregularity, the State Government has arbitrarily cancelled the entire selection process. He further submits that the cancellation of the selection process enmasse in the absence of any findings regarding irregularity, is totally unsustainable in law. In the alternative, it is submitted that if the selection of any of the candidate was tainted, it was possible to weed away the tainted candidates and the selection process, at the most could have been cancelled only in so far as those candidates are concerned. It is submitted that the cancellation of the selection process of un-tainted alongwith the tainted candidates has resulted in treating the unequals equally, thereby violating the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution. 6. He relies on the judgment of the Apex court in the case of " Inderpreet Singh Kahlon and others Vs. State of Punjab" (2006) 11 SCC 356 , " Union of India Vs. Rajesh P.U.Puthuvalnikathu" (2003) 7 SCC 285 and "Omkarlal Bajaj Vs. Union of India and another" (2003) 2 SC 673. 7. The learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Zilla Parishad submits that the entire selection process was carried out in accordance with the prescribed rules and regulations and that the entire process was transparent, unbiased and leaving no scope for any suspicion. 8. Union of India and another" (2003) 2 SC 673. 7. The learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Zilla Parishad submits that the entire selection process was carried out in accordance with the prescribed rules and regulations and that the entire process was transparent, unbiased and leaving no scope for any suspicion. 8. Shri Umakant Patil, learned APP on the contrary submits that since it was found that some of the relatives of the employees of the Zilla Parishad were selected in the selection process, and it was further found that handwritten script of 75 questions alongwith their answers were available with the media and the public representatives, it gave a scope for grave suspicion regarding the transparency and fairness of the selection process and as such, the State Government has rightly cancelled the entire selection process, so as to remove the scope for suspicion. 9. Perusal of the record would reveal that initially, enquiry was conducted by the Chief Executive Officer of the Zilla Parishad, Beed. In his report dated 20/6/2007, he has specifically stated that the entire selection process was transparent, fair and ensuring complete confidentiality of the process. It is to be noted that in his report, he has specifically stated that certain recommendations were received from the office bearers of the Zilla Parishad. It is further stated that, however, while making appointments, the said recommendations were not taken into consideration and the selections were made taking into consideration the merit and reservation. It is further stated that though the office bearers of the Zilla Parishad had sought for a meeting with him, the same was denied and on these two counts the office bearers had made false complaint regarding the selection process. 10. Subsequently, an enquiry was conducted by the Deputy Commissioner (Establishment) Aurangabad and he has submitted the report on 27/7/2007, on the basis of which report the selection process has been set aside. 11. The material allegations relating to the selection process are as under :- [i] That, the selection process was not transparent and confidential; [ii] The question papers alongwith the answer sheets were available to some candidates prior to examination. [iii] That the relatives of the employees of the Zilla Parishad were given favourable treatment in the selection process, thereby ensuring their selection. 12. [iii] That the relatives of the employees of the Zilla Parishad were given favourable treatment in the selection process, thereby ensuring their selection. 12. In so far as the first allegation is concerned, it has been found by the Enquiry Committee that as per the note sheet endorsed by the Chief Executive Officer on 4/6/2007, Shri Suryawanshi, Deputy Chief Officer (General) had prepared 105 questions. The text books of the 4th standard were obtained from the Block Education Officer. The said 105 questions were drafted by said Shri Surywanshi in his own handwriting without taking assistance of any subordinate or computerising the same. The said 105 questions were given by said Shri Suryawanshi, to the Chief Executive Officer, who also was the Chairman of the Selection Committee. The Chief Executive Officer finalised 75 questions. 13. Thereafter said Shri Suryawanshi personally gave the said question paper for printing at IGS Technology, Ahmednagar on 6/6/2007 at 3‘O Clock. A bond regarding maintaining secrecy was entered into by the said printer on a stamp of Rs. 100/-. The work regarding printing, keeping them in packets and sealing them etc. was done by the said printer. The question papers after printing were received on 7/6/2007 in the night at 11.30 p.m. The said question papers were brought in the vehicle of Deputy Chief Executive Officer (General) at Beed on 8/6/2007 at 2.30 a.m. and kept in a seal in his chamber. 14. The written examination was held on 9.6.2007 between 2.00 pm. to 2.30 p.m. at 22 centres. At the time of examination, the provisions of Section 144 of the Cr.P.C. were invoked in the premises where the examinations were held. The Enquiry Officer has come to a finding that the written examination was held properly and in strict police bandobast. Thereafter, the question papers were brought to the D.P.C. Hall of the main building and they were checked on the same day between 7.00 p.m. of 9/6/2007 to 6.00 a.m. of 10/6/2007. 15. The correction of the papers was undertaken under the supervision of the Chief Executive Officer, Deputy Chief Executive Officer (General), Deputy Chief Executive Officer (Child Welfare) and other departmental heads. After checking and rechecking, the merit list was published on 10/6/2007 at 7.15 p.m.. 16. 15. The correction of the papers was undertaken under the supervision of the Chief Executive Officer, Deputy Chief Executive Officer (General), Deputy Chief Executive Officer (Child Welfare) and other departmental heads. After checking and rechecking, the merit list was published on 10/6/2007 at 7.15 p.m.. 16. One of the allegations in the complaint was that question papers were supplied alongwith their answers a day in advance to the candidates with whom the transaction regarding selection were complete. In support of this allegation, a handwritten script of the question papers having question Nos. 1 to 75 and the answers to questions Sr.No. 1 to 60, were handed over to the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer has found that it was not clear as to whether the said handwritten question paper was of the time prior to the examination or after the examination. It was further found that the names of the persons who had been given the said papers were not given. The Enquiry Officer, therefore, has specifically found that the allegation that the said papers were handed over to the candidates prior to the examination, was without substance. 17. The Enquiry Officer has also negatived the charge regarding the change in the marks so as to suit certain candidates. 18. In so far as the allegation of one Arvind Trimbak Kapse to the effect that one Sanjay Kulkarni who is the Personal Assistant of the Chief Executive Officer had given him the question paper on 8/6/2007 and has also assisted him in writing the answers is concerned, the said allegation has also been found to be baseless. It has been found that at the relevant time, said Shri Kulkarni was at Ambejogai since his wife was undergoing treatment there. It is further found that though the allegation is pertaining to 8/6/2007, the complaint is filed on 11/6/2007. 19. It is, therefore, found that the allegation regarding lack of transparency and confidentiality and fairness of the selection process is without substance. 20. In so far as the allegation regarding favourable treatment given to the relatives of the employees of the zilla Parishad is concerned, it has been found that out of 223 candidates selected for oral interviews, prima facie, the number of relatives of the employees of the Zilla Parishad who have been selected for oral interview were only 9. 20. In so far as the allegation regarding favourable treatment given to the relatives of the employees of the zilla Parishad is concerned, it has been found that out of 223 candidates selected for oral interviews, prima facie, the number of relatives of the employees of the Zilla Parishad who have been selected for oral interview were only 9. However, after interviewing the employees whose relatives were alleged to have been selected, the Enquiry Officer has found that only 7 candidates were related to the employees of the Zilla Parishad. The Enquiry Officer had called all those 7 candidates for interview and recorded their statements on 11/7/2007. It has been stated in the report that all these candidates have denied that they were rendered any assistance by their relatives. The Enquiry Officer had asked them as to whether they were willing to again give answers to the question paper already answered and to the fresh question paper. Accordingly, all these candidates were asked to answer the question paper which was already answered by them and they were also asked to answer the fresh question paper prepared by the Enquiry Officer. 21. The comparative chart (page 51 of the paper book) indicating therein the marks obtained by the said candidates in the examination already held and the marks obtained by the candidates by answering the said questions before the Enquiry Officer on 11/7/2007 and the marks obtained by the said candidates by answering the fresh question paper, is as under :- --------------------------------------------------------------- Sr. Name of the Marks Incorrect marks No. candidate obtained answers obtained in exam. at the in the time of fresh recording examination. statement -------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Smt. Pardeshi Sangita Ramchandra 68 7 3/15 2. Smt.Paralkar Kalpana Sudamrao 65 7 7/15 3. Shri Chormale Tulshiram 68 23 5/15 Hiraman 4. Smt. Chormale Janabai Hiraman 63 31 1/15 5. Shri Garje Ramdas Chandrabhan 73 5 11/15 6. Smt. Adane Swati Baburao 48 6 4/15 7. Shri Digambar Lala Solase 48 8 7/15 --------------------------------------------------------------- The Enquiry Officer, therefore, found that there is a material difference in the marks obtained by Chormale Tulsiram Hiraman and Chormale Janabai Hiraman in the examination and while answering the question paper in the examination held on 11/7/2007. He has further found that the aforesaid two candidates and one Pardeshi Sangita, have also given many incorrect answers in the fresh question paper. He has further found that the aforesaid two candidates and one Pardeshi Sangita, have also given many incorrect answers in the fresh question paper. He has, therefore, found that the selection of these 3 candidates was doubtful. 22. After considering all this material, the Enquiry Officer came to a finding that there was no material to come to a finding that there was a breach of confidentiality. He has also found that there was no financial irregularity in the entire selection process. However, he finds that since the handwritten question papers alongwith answers was available with the print media and the office bearers, so also, since there was scope regarding merit of some of the candidates out of 7 candidates, who were relatives of the employees of the Zilla Parishad, it was appropriate that the entire selection process be conducted de-novo. On the basis of the said report, the impugned order has been passed. 23. In the case of "Union of India Vs. Rajesh P.U. Puthuvalnikathu" (supra) Central Bureau of Investigation had cancelled the selection process which was conducted for 134 posts of Constables. The said selection process consisted of a written examination and interview. The selection process was cancelled since there were allegations of favouritism and nepotism on the part of the officers in conducting the Physical Education Test and irregularity committed during the written examination. The selected candidates approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, which rejected their application. Thereafter, they approached before the Kerala High Court by way of a writ petition. The Division Bench of the Kerala High Court found that there was no justification to cancel the entire selection when the impact of irregularities which crept in the valuation of marks could be identified specifically. On reconsideration of the entire record, it was found that the selection process at the most has resulted in selection 37 specific number of candidates being selected undeservedly and as such, allowed the writ petition. Dismissing the appeal, the Apex Court observed thus :- . "Considering the contentions of either side in the light of the materials brought on the record, including the report of the Special Committee, there appears to be no scope for any legitimate grievance against the decision rendered by the High Court. Dismissing the appeal, the Apex Court observed thus :- . "Considering the contentions of either side in the light of the materials brought on the record, including the report of the Special Committee, there appears to be no scope for any legitimate grievance against the decision rendered by the High Court. There seems to be no serious grievance of any malpractices as such in the process of written examination - either by the candidates or those who actually conducted them. The Special Committee had extensively scrutinized and reviewed the situation by reevaluating the answer sheets of all candidates and ultimately found that except 31 candidates found to have been declared successful, though they were not entitled to be so declared successful and selected for appointment, there was no infirmity whatsoever in the selection of the other successful candidates. In the light of the above and in the absence of any specific or categorical finding supported by any concrete and relevant material, that wide spread infirmities of an all pervasive nature, which could be really said to have undermined the very process itself in its entirety or as a whole and it was impossible to weed out the beneficiaries of one or other irregularities or illegalities, if any, there was hardly any justification in law to deny appointment to the other selected candidates whose selections were not found to be, in any manner, vitiated for any one or other reasons. Applying a unilaterally rigid and arbitrary standard to cancel the entirety of the selections is nothing but total disregard of relevancies, giving a complete go-by to contextual considerations throwing to the winds the principles of proportionality in going farther than what was strictly and reasonably to meet the situation. In short, the competent authority completely misdirected itself in taking such an extreme and unreasonable decision of cancelling the entire selections, wholly unwarranted and unnecessary even on the factual situation found too, and totally in excess of the nature and gravity of what was at stake, thereby virtually rendering such decision to be irrational." 24. In the matter of "Indraprret Singh Kahlon and others Vs. State of Punjab and others" (supra), One Ravinderpal Singh Sidhu was the Chairman of the Punjab Public Service Commission between 1996 to 2002. Allegations were made against him that he got a large number of persons appointed on extraneous considerations including monetary consideration during 1998 to 2001. In the matter of "Indraprret Singh Kahlon and others Vs. State of Punjab and others" (supra), One Ravinderpal Singh Sidhu was the Chairman of the Punjab Public Service Commission between 1996 to 2002. Allegations were made against him that he got a large number of persons appointed on extraneous considerations including monetary consideration during 1998 to 2001. On consideration of the entire material placed before it, the State Government decided to cancel the entire selection made for the recruitment to PCS (Executive ) Branch and allied services in 1998. Regarding the judicial officers appointed to PCS (Judicial Branch) the High Court constituted two scrutiny committes. On the recommendations of the High Court, the State Government terminated the services of those who were appointed on the basis of the selection made by the commission, against the vacancies of the year 1999 and 2000. Writ petitions were filed before the High Court against the said dismissals. The said writ petitions were dismissed by the Full Bench of the High Court. Allowing the appeals, the Apex Court observed thus :- "Before a finding that an appointment has been made in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution can be arrived at, the appointing authority must take into consideration the foundational facts. Only when such foundational facts are established, can the legal principles be applied. When the services of employees are terminated inter alia on the ground that they might have aided and abetted corruption and thus, either for the sake of probity in governance or in public interest their services should be terminated, the court must satisfy itself that conditions therefore exist. The court while setting aside a selection may require the State to establish that the process was so tainted that the entire selection process is liable to be cancelled. In a case of this nature, thus, the question which requires serious consideration is as to whether due to the misdeed of some candidates, honest and meritorious candidates should also suffer" . The Apex Court has further observed thus :- " A distinction exists between a proven case of mass cheating for a board examination and an unproven imputed charge of corruption where the appointment of a civil servant is involved. The Apex Court has further observed thus :- " A distinction exists between a proven case of mass cheating for a board examination and an unproven imputed charge of corruption where the appointment of a civil servant is involved. Only in the event it is found to be impossible or highly improbable that the tainted cases can be separated from the non-tainted cases could en-masse orders of termination be issued. Both the State Government as also the High court in that view of the matter should have made all endeavours to segregate the tainted from the non-tainted candidates." . In the said judgment the Apex Court in para. 58 has observed thus : . "Contention of Mr. Dwivedi, as noticed hereinbefore, centres around condemnation of selection and not of the candidate. But, when the services of the employees are terminated inter alia on the ground that they might have aided and abated corruption and, thus, either for the sake of probity in governance or in the public interest their services should be terminated, the court must satisfy itself that conditions therefore exist. The court while setting aside a selection may require the State to establish that the process was so tainted that the entire selection process is liable to be cancelled." . The Apex Court has further observed in para.59 as under :- . "In a case of this nature, thus, the question which requires serious consideration is as to whether due to the misdeed of some candidates, honest and meritorious candidates should also suffer." . It would thus appear that the Apex Court has clearly held in the aforesaid cases that if out of the selected candidate, it was possible to weed out the tainted candidates, there was no justification to deny appointment of those candidates whose selection was not vitiated in any manner. 25. In the present case, it can be seen that the Enquiry Report submitted by the Chief Executive Officer, so also, the Deputy Commissioner (Establishment) clearly shows that there was no material to point out that there was any irregularity, breach of confidentiality, lack of transparency in the entire selection process. It has been found that the entire selection process was done in a transparent and fair manner ensuring complete confidentiality. It has been found that the entire selection process was done in a transparent and fair manner ensuring complete confidentiality. The allegation that the handwritten script of question papers was supplied prior to the examination was also found to be baseless by the Enquiry Officer. It has been found that though the concerned candidates, namely, Shri Arvind Kapse has stated that he has received the question paper on 8/6/2007, he has not made complaint till 11/6/2007. The Enquiry Officer has further found that the allegations made against one Sanjay Kulkarni, P.A. to the Chief Executive Officer was also found to be baseless. It has been found that the allegations regarding the irregularity and malpractices were totally baseless. It has been further found that the allegations regarding corruption were also without any basis. 26. In so far as the allegation regarding the relatives of the employees of the Zilla Parishad being given favourable treatment is concerned, it has been found that only 7 out of 223 eligible candidates were found to be related. It has been further found that out of these 7 candidates, 5 candidates had given almost correct answers to the question paper, when the said candidates were asked to answer the question papers on 11/7/2007, before the Enquiry Officer. It can thus been seen that there are only two candidates who have given substantial number of incorrect answers subsequently before the Enquiry Officer. It can thus clearly be seen that, at the most, it could be suspected that the aforesaid two candidate could have received favourable treatment. We further repeat that it could be only suspected that they could have been given favourable treatment. Even the Enquiry Officer has come to a finding that there is no material available to establish that favourable treatment was given to such candidates. 27. By the impugned order, what has been done is that the entire selection process has been set aside. The honest and sincere candidates who were selected, have been denied appointments only on vague suspicion that the Enquiry Officer has regarding availability of hand written question papers alongwith answers with the media and public representatives. However, he himself has come to a finding that there is no material to establish that the said question papers were available prior to the examination. However, he himself has come to a finding that there is no material to establish that the said question papers were available prior to the examination. He has further found that even the names of the persons from whom these two chits have been found have not been disclosed. It can thus clearly be seen that there is no material to establish that the handwritten script of the question papers were received prior to the examination. On the contrary, the finding is otherwise. 28. In that view of the matter, we find that the impugned order, quashing and setting aside the entire selection process is not sustainable in law. At the most, it could be seen that there is some suspicion regarding the selection of two candidates, namely, Chormale Tulshiram Hiraman and Chormale Janabai Hiraman, in which case, there is a vast different in the correct answers at the time of examination held on 9.6.2007 and the answers given on 11/7/2007 before the Enquiry Officer. AT the most, the selection of these two candidates could be under a shadow of doubt. We see no justification in denying the appointment to the other selected candidates whose selection is not found in any manner vitiated or for any other reason. We find that the order of cancellation of the entire selection process is totally arbitrary. It is to be further noted that the number of candidates who are found to be related to employees of Zilla Parishad, and who are eligible for oral interview is insignificant as compared to total number of 223 candidates found eligible for oral interview. 29. In the result, we partly allow the petition. the impugned order dated 10th March, 2008 issued by the respondent No.2 Desk Officer, cancelling the selection process is quashed and set aside except the two candidates namely, Chormale Tulshiram Hiraman and Chormale Janabai Hiraman. The respondent Zilla Parishad is directed to declare the result of the oral interviews held on 11/7/2007 and thereafter complete the entire selection process, in accordance with law. Petition partly allowed.