ORDER Dipak Misra, J. 1. Questioning the faultlessness of the decision rendered in three original applications being O.A. No. 544/2007, O.A. No. 580/2007 and O.A. No. 724/ 2007 by the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal') by a singular order dated 14-12-2007 the Railway Administration and its functionaries have invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and prayed for issue of a writ of certiorari for quashment of the same. It is apposite to state here that three original applications were preferred by various incumbents assailing the action of the respondents who had cancelled the selection process vide order dated 6-8-2007 (Annexure A-1) to the original application and, therefore, it is seemly to uncurtain and unfold the facts on a common canvass. 2. The petitioner No. 2, the Divisional Manager Railways, Jabalpur issued a notification dated 14-12-2007 to fill up 16 posts (15 of general category and 1 of scheduled tribe) of Chief Ticket Inspector. The list of Assistant Chief Ticket Inspector within the zone of consideration was published alongwith the notification and all eligible candidates who were included in the zone of consideration were directed to appear in the test scheduled to be held on 10-3-2007. As per order dated 10-7-2007 12 candidates were declared pass in the written test conducted for the posts in question. Out of 12 candidates 2 reserved candidates were declared pass with the relaxed standard. After publication of result in written examination the Additional Divisional Railway Manager received information regarding series of irregularities in the selection process. He called for the answer scripts to scrutinize the irregularities and found that certain candidates who have got less marks should have been awarded more marks and certain candidates who have been conferred the benefit of more marks deserved less marks. It was found by the authority that unwanted favour had been shown to certain candidates. In essence, irregularities pertaining to unfair valuation of the answer scripts were perceived. Because of the said situation the Railway Administration formed a bona fide opinion that the order of selection is vitiated by extraneous consideration and, therefore, it issued the order dated 06-8-2007 cancelling the selection process. The substantiality of the said order was assailed before the Tribunal. 3. In essence, irregularities pertaining to unfair valuation of the answer scripts were perceived. Because of the said situation the Railway Administration formed a bona fide opinion that the order of selection is vitiated by extraneous consideration and, therefore, it issued the order dated 06-8-2007 cancelling the selection process. The substantiality of the said order was assailed before the Tribunal. 3. It was contended before the Tribunal that the Railway Vigilance Cell has not found anything against the applicants therein and, therefore, they should not be penalized for no fault of theirs. They also questioned the authority of Additional Divisional Railway Manager who had scrutinized the answer scripts and directed cancellation of the selection process. 4. The Railway Administration putforth a stance before the Tribunal that finding irregularities in the selection process it was thought condign to cancel the selection process. It was also urged that mere selection does not confer any right on the applicants and hence, they are not entitled to question the cancellation of selection. 5. As is evincible from the order of the Tribunal, it has perused the record and noticed certain inconsistencies in the valuation of the answer scripts. The Tribunal took note of the fact that the candidates had not committed any malpractice in the written examination and answers of the applicants were not subjected to improper valuation except that of one applicant, namely, B.K. Dubey. The Tribunal placed reliance on the decision rendered in Union of India v. Rajesh P.U. Puthuvalinilkathu and Anr. AIR2003SC4222 and came to hold that the principles enunciated therein are applicable. Being of this view it set aside the order dated 06-8-2007 and directed the respondents therein to further complete the selection process as per the Rules. 6. Mr. N.S. Ruprah, learned Counsel for the petitioners has raised the following contentions: (i) The respondents-petitioners who had appeared in the examination and declared pass have no right in law to be selected solely on the ground that they had passed in the written examination. (ii) Unless the right gets ripened, the candidates cannot approach the Court for commanding the employer to proceed further and hence, the interference by the Tribunal at the interregnum stage is totally unjustified. (ii) Unless the right gets ripened, the candidates cannot approach the Court for commanding the employer to proceed further and hence, the interference by the Tribunal at the interregnum stage is totally unjustified. (iii) The interference in the midway of selection amounts to interference in the authority of the employer to select which is impermissible and further it does not permit the employer to put its own house in order and when the model employer like Railway Administration desires to put the house in order it should be allowed to do so. (iv) The Tribunal has fallen into grave error by placing reliance on the decision rendered in Rajesh P.U. Puthuvalinilkathu (supra) as such reliance is absolutely fallacious. Quite apart from the above, the analysis made by the Tribunal being defective makes the order impugned vulnerable in law. To bolster his submissions the learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decisions rendered in the cases of Jal Singh Dala and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr. 1993 AIR SCW 632 and Union of Chandigarh v. Dilbagh Singh and Ors. (1993)IILLJ1043SC . 7. Mr. Manoj Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, per contra, has submitted that the candidates who had undergone the examination cannot be blamed for the fault of the examiner. It is urged by him that the principle of weeding out could have been taken recourse to by the employer and some persons might have been debarred but not the respondents as no fault was found with their answer scripts. It is further submitted by him that the fault exclusively lies with the employer for choosing the wrong valuer and in that case the cancellation is not the only solution. It is canvassed by him that as a corrective measure the employer could have directed for revaluation and as the same has not been done the Tribunal is justified in commanding the employer to proceed as per the rules. 8. At the very out set we must state that there is no dispute with regard to the facts. The pivotal issue that arises for consideration is whether the Tribunal is justified in setting aside the order of cancellation. The pleadings do not exposit that for any other reason the Railway Administration had cancelled the selection except for the ground that there was impropriety and illegality in the valuation of marks. The pivotal issue that arises for consideration is whether the Tribunal is justified in setting aside the order of cancellation. The pleadings do not exposit that for any other reason the Railway Administration had cancelled the selection except for the ground that there was impropriety and illegality in the valuation of marks. Regard being had to the aforesaid factual scenario we think it proper to refer to certain decisions is the field. In Rajesh P.U. Puthuvalinilkathu (supra) the Apex Court has taken note of the fact that in some cases the valuation of the answer scripts, incorrect answers were found to have been awarded marks and in certain other cases correct answers were assessed to be wrong and denied the marks. Their Lordships have also taken note of the fact that in some cases one or more of the answers seem to have not been evaluated for awarding marks while excess marks than allowed seems to have been allowed in certain cases for one or the other questions. The Apex Court took note of the fact that there was no grievance of any mal practice in the process of written examination, either by the candidates or by those who conducted them. It was expressed by their Lordships that unilaterally rigid and arbitrary standard to cancel the selection process in entirety is nothing but a total disregard of relevancies, giving a complete go-by to contextual considerations and throwing the principle of proportionality to the winds in going farther than what was strictly and reasonably to meet the situation. It was further observed that the competent authority has completely misdirected itself in taking such an extreme and unreasonable decision of cancelling the entire selection. 9. In Dilbagh Singh (supra) it was held that the candidates whose names find place in the select list as candidates selected for appointment do not acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed in such post in absence of any specific rule entitling him for such appointment. In the said case when the complaints were received about unfair and injudicious manner in which select list of candidates for appointment as conductors was prepared by the Selection Board constituted for the purpose, it found those complaints to be well founded on an enquiry conducted in that regard and it was held that cancellation of such dubious selection list was unassailable. 10. In Union of India and Ors. 10. In Union of India and Ors. v. O. Chakradhar [2002]1SCR1091 , Their Lordships opined that the nature and 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 wide-spread and all pervasive, affecting the result, so as to make it difficult, to pick out the persons who have been unlawfully benefitted or wrongly 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. 11. In Union of India and Ors. v. Tarun K. Singh and Ors. AIR2001SC2196 , the Apex Court expressed the view that individual applicant for post does not get his right enforceable by mandamus unless and until he is selected and gets appointment. In the said case much before the so called list of selection was approved by the Railway Board, the order of cancellation had emanated on the basis of complaint received from so many quarters. On that base, their Lordships upheld the cancellation as there were gross irregularities and illegalities in the selection process. 12. In K. Channegowda v. Karnataka Public Service Commission (2005)12SCC688 , the Apex Court dealt with the case where the Tribunal placing reliance on the decision in Anamica Mishra v. U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad had expressed the opinion that the entire examination should not be set aside in the facts and circumstances of the case and fairness can be ensured if the answer received were revalued after taking precaution to ensure fairness. Be it noted, the Tribunal had passed an order of valuation of the answer scripts laying down the guidelines. The High Court meticulously examined and set aside the order of Tribunal for fresh valuation and directed moderation or random review to be undertaken and where such moderation and random review was found to be inadequate the revaluation would be done. The Public Service Commission would be well advised to apply scaling method as directed by the High Court. The Apex Court took note of the fact that the High Court had recorded reasons for directing revaluation only in some of the subjects and accordingly affirmed the decision of the High Court. The Public Service Commission would be well advised to apply scaling method as directed by the High Court. The Apex Court took note of the fact that the High Court had recorded reasons for directing revaluation only in some of the subjects and accordingly affirmed the decision of the High Court. 13. In Ashok Lenka v. Rishi Dikshit and Ors. AIR2006SC2382 , the Apex Court in Paragraph 41 has held as under: 41. In law it is permissible to cancel the entire selection process if it is held that the same is tainted to such an extent that it may not be possible to separate the innocent from the tainted ones. As, for example, in a case of mass cheating adopted by the students in a Board Examination, it may be permissible to cancel the entire examination. When selections, however, are carried out not by one agency but by several ones, the principle of en masse cancellation may not apply. In this case, admittedly, several District Level Committees have carried out the selection process and in that view of the matter it was obligatory on the part of the High Court to consider the mode or manner of selection made by each one of them individually. It was not a case of mass cheating in an examination or an illegality or gross irregularity in the selection process which would lead to cancellation of the entire selection process. Though the said passage was stated in a different context, yet it has its own applicability. 14. In Inderpreet Singh Kahlon and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors. AIR2006SC2571 a two-Judge Bench of the Apex Court has expressed in separate judgments that recourse to en masse cancellation should be taken recourse to if a finding is reached that it is impossible for the employer to separate the innocent people from the tainted ones. 15. The present factual matrix has to be tested on the basis of aforesaid enunciation of law. The sole ground which has been made the foundation of cancellation is that certain answer scripts had been wrongly valued and, therefore, some candidates were benefitted and certain answer scripts were erroneously valued and certain aspirants had got less marks and in certain cases the question papers were not valued. There is no iota of allegation against any of the candidates. There is no iota of allegation against any of the candidates. The candidates, as is unmistakably clear, had no role in the valuation. Submission of Mr. Ruprah, learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Railway desired to keep the house in order and also proceed against the examiner who had carried out the valuation. The said two aspects are in different compartments altogether. It is not a case where there had been any kind of mass cheating, leaking of question papers or such irregularities which would impair the saving of examination. On the contrary, the blame is exclusively on the examiner who had valued the answer scrips. There is also no allegation that the candidates had tried to influence or persuade the examiner. In view of the aforesaid, the order of cancellation passed by the Tribunal is indefensible. However, the order of Tribunal directing the respondents therein to proceed further to complete the selection process as per rules, in our considered opinion, requires modification. There has been certain irregularities in the valuation. The Tribunal has observed that the applicants had not committed any mal practice in the written examination. One candidate, Shri B.K. Dubey might have got more marks, but that only creates a dent in the valuation but does not reflect that any tainted activity was carried out by said B.K. Dubey. As the valuation of answer papers was improperly done, we think it proper to modify the order of the Tribunal to the extent that the Railway Administration shall get the answer scripts valued afresh by a single responsible valuer or by an expert committee of valuers, as advised. We leave the same to the discretion of the petitioners. We have so directed as the cancellation of examination has been done solely on the ground of improper valuation of the answer scripts. Consequently, the writ petitions are allowed in part and the order passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.