Judgment 1. The counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants were selectees in the competitive examination and that they were not found to have indulged in fraud nor charge-sheeted by the Vigilance Department and, therefore, the cancellation of selection in its entirety including that of the appellants by the Single Judge was not justified. The counsel would also submit that before canceling the selection in entirety no notice of any sort was given in the matter to the present appellants. He would submit that the appellants were not even parties in the writ petition. 2. The contentions of the counsel for the appellants do not deserve to be accepted. In L.P.A. No. 833 of 2008 (Md. Farooquezzaman & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) wherein the impugned judgment was assailed, we considered the matter thus: "2. Relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS vs. RAJESH P.U., PUTHUVALNIKATHU AND ANOTHER, (2003)7 SCC 285 , the counsel for the appellants submits that the cancellation of selection in its entirety was not proper and the selectees who were unblemished ought to have been separated from the selectees who were found to have indulged in fraud and were charge-sheeted by the Vigilance Department. 3. In so far as the present case is concerned, the entire selection process has been found to be farcical by the Single Judge. The whole exercise suffers from organized conspiracy and systematic fraud. The Chairman (present as well as past), three Members and six officials and the staff of the Bihar Public Service Commission were arrested and have been charge-sheeted alongwith ninety seven selectees. The fraud and mischief played by these people is allpervasive which has affected the entire selection process. 4. In the backdrop of these facts and the situation where the entire selection process is found to be farcical and result of organized conspiracy and systematic fraud, it is neither possible and nor feasible to separate the beneficiaries against whom there may not be any direct evidence of involvement. Even if few selectees (like the petitioners) are assumed to be not tainted, no benefit can be given to them since the factual situation leads to the only conclusion that the entire selection process was founded on mischief, fraud, extraneous consideration and criminal acts. 5. Even if few selectees (like the petitioners) are assumed to be not tainted, no benefit can be given to them since the factual situation leads to the only conclusion that the entire selection process was founded on mischief, fraud, extraneous consideration and criminal acts. 5. The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of RAJESH P.U., PUTHUVALNIKATHU AND ANOTHER does not apply to the fact-situation of the present case. Incidentally, we may note that the counsel for the appellants did not put in issue the legality and correctness of the diverse findings recorded by the Single Judge that the selection process was farcical and the result of systematic fraud." 3. For the self same reasons, the appeal is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed in limine.