JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Writ Petition No. 48688 of 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the “1st set”) filed by six petitioners, namely, Taram Dhwaj, Brijesh Kumar Singh, Amar Nath Yadav, Rajesh Kumar, Vinod Kumar and Gajendra Singh, seeking writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to appoint them on the post of Assistant Radio Wireless Operator against the vacancies advertised on 7.9.2001 and 25.4.2005 and also to quash the selection process/result and appointment already made on the post of Assistant Radio Wireless Operator. 2. The case of the petitioner is that they are Ex-servicemen retired from various armed forced on various dates in the year 2001-02-03. The State Government vide Government Order dated 28th July, 1999 has provided 5% reservation for Ex-Serviceman vide advertisement dated 17.9.2001. The respondents advertised 890 vacancies of Assistant Radio Wireless Operator (hereinafter referred to as A.R.W.O). However, above selection could not be materialised and subsequently vide advertisement dated 15th September, 2004 further 170 vacancies of A.R.W.O. were advertised. The said selection also did not proceed and third advertisement was published on 14th May, 2005 advertising 1061 vacancies of A.R.W.O. wherein 530 posts for general category, 287 posts for other backward class (hereinafter to be referred as “O.B.C.”), 220 posts for Scheduled Caste (hereinafter to be referred as “S.C.”), 21 posts for Schedule Tribe (hereinafter to be referred as “S.T.”). 3. The pre-examination was held on 9th April, 2006, physical test held on 4th April, 2006 and 9th July, 2006, written test was held on 30th July, 2006 and interview was held in between 18th August to 23rd August, 2006. However, the petitioners have not been finally selected and have not been given benefit of 5% reservation of Ex-Serviceman. Selection has been held illegally. There is lack of transparency inasmuch as marks obtained by candidates have not been disclosed and selection of chosen candidates have been made without following the policy of reservation. 4. Sri Girish Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that since the petitioners belonged to reserved category, they were entitled to be selected against the vacancies meant for Ex-Serviceman and the respondents have denied the said reservation to the petitioners and have acted illegally. 5. 4. Sri Girish Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that since the petitioners belonged to reserved category, they were entitled to be selected against the vacancies meant for Ex-Serviceman and the respondents have denied the said reservation to the petitioners and have acted illegally. 5. Respondents have filed counter affidavit stating that the recruitment in question was that of A.R.W.O., governed earlier by U.P. Police Radio Subordinate Service Rules, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules, 1982”) and which has now been amended by U.P. Police Radio Adhinastha Sewa (Second Amendment) Niyamwali, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “Amending Rules 2005”). It is stated that 890 vacancies of A.R.W.O. were advertised in the year 2001 but due to administrative reasons selection process remained in abeyance till 2004. In the meantime 170 vacancies further became available which were advertised by the advertisement of 2004. The said selection also could not proceed. In the meantime 1982 Rules were amended by “Amending Rules 2005” which came into force on 31st March, 2005. In the light of the Amending Rules, 2005, the advertisement was published in 2005 for total numbers of 1061 vacancies of A.R.W.O. The selection thereafter has been completed in accordance with above Rules and due weightage of Ex-Servicemen quota has been extended to successful candidates in that category on the basis of their performance and merits. The petitioner could not be selected due to their inferior performance. 6. The petitioners have not filed any rejoinder affidavit. 7. The writ petition No. 49660 of 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the “2nd Set”) has been filed by four petitioners namely, Narendra Kumar (Roll No. 2005-112538), Mahesh Chandra Yadav (Roll No. 2005-321260), Km. Ranjana Singh (Roll No. 2005-017884) and Km. Anupama Agarhari (Roll No. 2005-017915), praying for issuance of writ of certiorari quashing the selection of 1061 A.R.W.O. in U.P. Police Radio Services pursuant to the advertisement dated 21st April, 2005, and, further to issue writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to re-initiate the process of selection under an impartial authority to be nominated by this Court. 8. Anupama Agarhari (Roll No. 2005-017915), praying for issuance of writ of certiorari quashing the selection of 1061 A.R.W.O. in U.P. Police Radio Services pursuant to the advertisement dated 21st April, 2005, and, further to issue writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to re-initiate the process of selection under an impartial authority to be nominated by this Court. 8. It has been averred that pursuant to advertisement dated 21.4.2005, the petitioners have applied and appeared in preliminary examination held on 9th April, 2006 after qualifying the preliminary examination, the petitioners participated in physical test, thereafter appeared in main examination held on 30th July, 2006 and also appeared in interview held on 22nd and 23rd August, 2006. The interview continued upto 9:30 p.m. on 23rd August, 2006 and result was published on the internet on 24th August, 2006. The medical test was also conducted on the same day i.e. on 24th August, 2006 and none of the candidates found unfit in the medical test. Rather, the selected candidates joined on 24th August, 2006. This itself shows that the entire selection was pre-determined otherwise it would not have been possible to complete final result, medical test of chosen candidates on the same day and their joining without process of information undergone otherwise. 9. On behalf of respondents No.1 and 2 counter affidavit has been filed by Syed Zia Abbas Rizvi, Assistant Radio Officer (Legal Cell), U.P. Police Radio Headquarter, Lucknow. It is said that as a result of preliminary examination 14674 candidates were called for physical ability test and those who were found successful were called for main written examination, and 4337 candidates were called for interview which commenced from 18th August, 2006 and completed on 23rd August, 2006 whereafter result was declared on 24th August, 2006 on the notice board of Police Radio Headquarter, Lucknow and on the internet. The selection has been made in accordance with Rules including the provision of reservation. However, it is not disputed that final result was declared on 24th August, 2006 and selected candidates also undergone medical test on the same day. Those, found successful in the medical test, were taken in service by the department. 10. The petitioners have not filed any rejoinder affidavit. 11. Writ Petitions No. 54208 and 51946 of 2006 is similar to writ petition (2nd set) involving similar factual and legal aspects. 12. Those, found successful in the medical test, were taken in service by the department. 10. The petitioners have not filed any rejoinder affidavit. 11. Writ Petitions No. 54208 and 51946 of 2006 is similar to writ petition (2nd set) involving similar factual and legal aspects. 12. The Writ Petition No. 46535 of 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the “3rd set”) has been filed by Ashutosh Kumar and Shailendra Pratap Singh challenging the result of main written examination dated10th August, 2006 held for the post of A.R.W.O. The petitioners have also sought a writ of mandamus commanding respondent No. 2 to prepare list of written examination afresh on the basis of actual marks obtained by the candidates therein and publish the same in the newspaper as well as in the internet. 13. The facts averred in the writ petition (3rd set) are that an advertisement was published on 22nd April, 2005 for 1061 vacancies of A.R.W.O. Recruitment consisted of preliminary examination, efficiency test, main written examination and interview. The petitioners appeared in the preliminary examination test on 9th April, 2006. After qualifying the same, participated in efficiency test held on Ist July, 2006 at 35th Battalion, P.A.C., Lucknow and being successful therein, appeared in main written examination which consists of two papers. First Paper - I General Hindi 50 marks II General Knowledge 50 marks Second Paper - I General Science 50 marks II Mental ability test. 30 marks 14. The examination was held on 30th April, 2006, petitioner No. 1 answered 96 questions out of 100 in first paper and 78 questions out of 80 in second paper. Similarly petitioner No. 2 answered 97 questions out of 100 in Ist paper and 76 questions out of 80. Therefore, in the main written examination, the petitioners must have obtained 174 and 173 marks respectively but in the result declared on 10th August, 2006, their name did not figure though more than 50% candidate belong to a particular community namely, ‘Yadav’ have been declared successful. It is alleged that in the district Etawah, out of 120 candidates, 60 candidates selected are Yadav and the list of said candidates has been filed as Annexure-7 to the writ petition. It is also alleged that entire selection is vitiated on account of undue pressure exerted by the then Chief Minister and his brother, Sri Shiv Pal Singh Yadav, the Minister. It is also alleged that entire selection is vitiated on account of undue pressure exerted by the then Chief Minister and his brother, Sri Shiv Pal Singh Yadav, the Minister. When Sri K.K. Saxena, Inspector General of Police/Director (Door Sanchar), decline to declare the result under the pressure of Sri Shiv Pal Singh Yadav, he was transferred and another person namely, Sri B.K. Bhalla was posted, who surrendered to the wishes of the said Minister. It is also alleged that one candidate namely, Vimlesh Kumar (Roll No. 2001129579) belong to district Etawah who has secured lesser marks but has been selected while the petitioners who are more meritorious are not included in the result of main written examination. 15. In the counter affidavit filed by respondents, they have denied the allegation of malafide, lack of transparency, unfairness etc. and states that Sri B.K. Bhalla is Additional Director General of Police while Sri K.K. Saxena is Inspector General of Police/Director (Door Sanchar) and both were posted on the said post prior to initiation of selection and are still continuing on the said post. No person securing lesser marks has been selected. 16. Here also no rejoinder affidavit has been filed. 17. The Writ Petition No. 49796 of 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the “4th set”) also challenges the final selection/result of recruitment on the post of A.R.W.O. as declared on 23.8.2006 and seeks further a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to prepare result of marks secured by each candidates in main written examination and interview and publish in newspaper and internet besides producing the copy of result before this Court. 18. There are two petitioners in writ petition (4th set), namely Nitesh Pandey and Brijesh Pandey, who are real brothers. They also claim to have done well in the main written examination. Besides general allegation about extraneous consideration and lack of transparency in the selection, they further states that two candidates namely Anoop Agarwal (Roll No. 2001122123) and Ashish Agarwal (Roll No. 2001122088) have been selected though have done poorly as compared to petitioner. 19. Counter affidavit filed by the respondents contain similar averments as noted above but in this case, the petitioners have filed rejoinder affidavit reiterating what they have stated in the writ petition. 20. 19. Counter affidavit filed by the respondents contain similar averments as noted above but in this case, the petitioners have filed rejoinder affidavit reiterating what they have stated in the writ petition. 20. Writ Petitions No. 48523, 44280, 58353, 53126 and 58355 of 2006 are similar to writ petition (4th set) involving similar factual and legal aspects. 21. In writ petition No. 52250 of 2006 though pleadings are similar with the writ petition (4th set) but there is another aspect that petitioner No. 1 possesses NCC certificate ‘C’, Petitioner No. 2 possesses Computer certificate 2001-2002 and petitioner No. 3 is holder of ITI certificate but they have not been given benefit of the said educational qualification. Writ Petition No. 50399 of 2006 is also similar as the petitioners claimed to be highly qualified but their complaint is that the said high qualification has not been given due credit. 22. The Writ Petition No. 47395 of 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the “5th set”) has been filed by Sri Ramashray Yadav and Saroj Kumar Kushwaha while Writ Petition No. 51388 of 2006 has been filed by one Saroj Sanjay Kumar. Both challenge the recruitment to the post of A.R.W.O. in U.P. Police, the result whereof was declared on 24/25th August, 2006 and seek writ of mandamus to appoint the petitioners on the post of A.R.W.O. and pay compensation to the extent of Rs. 1 lacs to each of the petitioner. The only additional ground taken in the above two writ petitions is that the interview was farce inasmuch as the petitioner and five other candidates were called jointly on 22.8.2006, no question was properly asked from them and even minimum time of one minutes was not given to the candidates for interview, hence the entire selection is farce, arbitrary and illegal being held in most hurried and pre-determined manner. 23. In both the matter counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit have been exchanged contains similar stand as in other case. 24. Writ Petition No. 55898 of 2006 is similar to writ petitions 2nd and 5th Sets involving similar factual and legal aspects. Writ Petition No. 53846 of 2006 is similar to writ petition 5th set involving similar factual and legal aspects. 25. 24. Writ Petition No. 55898 of 2006 is similar to writ petitions 2nd and 5th Sets involving similar factual and legal aspects. Writ Petition No. 53846 of 2006 is similar to writ petition 5th set involving similar factual and legal aspects. 25. Writ Petition No. 44043 of 2006 (hereinafter referred to as “6th Set”) has been filed by Ranjan Kumar seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to take interview of the petitioner for the post of A.R.W.O., U.P. Police Radio Branch at Lucknow with other candidates by issuing provisional interview letter to the petitioner and sending all records of selection of the post of A.R.W.O. and to declare the petitioner and other candidates successful for the post of A.R.W.O. after taking all records of selection including the interview papers. He also seeks a writ of certiorari quashing the selection process/result and appointment for the post of A.R.W.O., U.P. Police Lucknow dispensing with the selection process/result papers/orders of respondents regarding the post of A.R.W.O. 26. The basic submission of the petitioner in writ petition (6th set) is that he has done very well but has not been declared successful in the main written examination held on 30.7.2006. The candidates having Roll No. 2005410014 and 2005410015 sitting near the petitioner in the examination hall were highly depressed having not answered the question papers well, yet they have been declared successful and called for interview which is going to be held on 18.8.2006. It is alleged that the selection has been made by pick and choose method, arbitrarily and under the pressure of the Government. The petitioner belong to the category of dependent of freedom fighter for whom there is reservation of 2% but it has not been disclosed as to whether the said quota had been adhered to while declaring the result. There is lack of transparency in this regard and, therefore entire selection is illegal. 27. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it is not disputed that the petitioner having been declared successful in the preliminary examination was called for main written examination which consisted of 180 marks divided in two question papers : the first one of General Hindi (50 marks) plus General Knowledge (50 marks) and the second is of General Science (50 marks) plus mental ability (30 marks). Answers books have been checked by following the Optical Mark Reader (hereinafter referred to as “OMR”) and the process was completed by use of computer. The petitioner did not secure sufficient marks to qualify the main written examination while the other candidates whose roll numbers are mentioned in the writ petition have secured marks much higher and on the basis of their merit have been declared successful. The candidates who were declared successful in the main written examination were called for interview which consisted of 20 marks and thereafter final result has been declared. There is no arbitrariness, illegality etc. in the examination, and, therefore, no interference in the writ petition is called for. 28. A rejoinder affidavit has been filed stating that the respondents ought to have placed entire record of selection before this Court and their counter affidavit lacks details which show that the respondents have not filed their reply with clean hands. It would be interesting to notice the averments made in paragraphs 5 and 7 of the rejoinder affidavit as under : “5. That the Contents of the para 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and11 of the aforesaid Counter Affidavit are not admitted as stated by the respondents except the matter, disclosed regarding the record of the case. In reply it is submitted that it is nowhere disclosed by the counter Affidavit, by the respondents that how many vacancies in 2002, 2003 etc. of Assistant Radio Operator of U.P. Police Radio Branch and what was the difficulty in for incrementing the benefit of reservation to reserve category candidate if recruitment was not completed in pursuance of the Advertisement of 2001 on this ground, if only one ground of reservation regarding difficulty in completing the recruitment in pursuance of the advertisement has been taken by the respondents and no papers submitted in support of this content/grounds of the Counter Affidavit in spite adding another similarly ground taken by the respondents regarding the Judgement of the Apex Court, without annexing/Quoting the Judgment/order of the Apex Court. Rest of the contents of the Counter Affidavit under reply are matter of examination with original record of the case for deciding the case on the basis of the correct facts and records of the case, otherwise it appears that respondents are not wanting to reply the Hon’ble Court with clean hand to annex the record of the selection/appointment in question with Counter Affidavit, so that sufferral like unemployed people like petitioner and others can file reply taking all relevant record, information to respondents for justice as well as employment to make clear the corruption in selection in appointment of U.P. Government/Government Officers, respondents, which has been disclosed by the media and by the Judgment and pending cases in the Hon’ble Court not in matter of the selection/appointment, but in other matters also like transfer and promotion etc. It is further replied that in spite of the order of the Court for filing the Counter Affidavit in several writ petition including this writ petition, neither clear cut detail Counter Affidavit, supporting the contents of the Counter Affidavit has been filed yet, nor clean hand step as well as intention of State Government had been shown for stopping the appointment and for amending the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Police Radio Adhinasth Sewa Niyamawali, 1982 (hereinafter referred as Niyamawali) by the disclosed facts of the Counter Affidavit of the respondents, though the matter has been seriously contested by the several unemployed candidate before this Hon’ble Court including the Lucknow Bench and in the Apex Court to challenge the validity of selection in question and amendment of Niayamawali with reservation etc. 7. That the contents of para 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 of the aforesaid Counter Affidavit are not admitted as stated, hence denied. 7. That the contents of para 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 of the aforesaid Counter Affidavit are not admitted as stated, hence denied. In reply it is submitted that correctness of the allegations against the selection in question may be cleared by summoning the original records of the selection and appointment in question to the respondents under law like answer sheet/copy of the unsuccessful candidate and successful candidate with quality point marks/number chart of written examination and interview of category wise candidate, otherwise the disclosed process of the selection and appointment in question by the several writ petitions, has been made in hurry manner illegally, arbitrarily and malafidely without following the advertisement itself and without following the transparency of the selection and appointment to pick and choose the candidate by the illegal corrupt process through brokers and Police Department Public Servants/Government Servant to violate the Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India and selection process. Hence the writ petition with other writ petition is liable to be allowed with cost of the case with other benefit and action under law in the interest of justice, according to the facts and circumstances of the case, otherwise poor reserve category unemployed candidate like petitioner and other are running here and there expending their money, time and energy to suffer irreparable loss by contest to powerful respondents. 29. Writ Petition No. 47752 of 2006 filed by one Km. Neetu has challenged the entire selection on the grounds similar to writ petitions (4th and 6th Set) but has been filed after declaration of final result and, therefore, in the relief, it has sought a writ of certiorari also for quashing the final result declared on 24.8.2006. 30. Writ Petition No. 53912 of 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the “7th set”) has been filed by one Km. 30. Writ Petition No. 53912 of 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the “7th set”) has been filed by one Km. Chandralekha seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to call for the record of the entire selection and direct the respondents to select the petitioner on the post of A.R.W.O. It is said that the petitioner though applied for the post and received a call letter on 8th April, 2006 but was not issued any call letter for physical test whereupon she went to Lucknow and gave an application and only then was allowed to appear at physical test on 17th July, 2006 at Lucknow which she did well and was orally informed that she has passed in the physical test but was not issued any call letter for further test thereafter though there is reservation of scheduled caste to the extent of 27% and for women candidates 20% reservation, yet she has not been called showing that there is illegality and favouritism in the selection. 31. The counter affidavit filed by the respondents gave details of selection and relevant rules including that after evaluating the performance of the candidates in the preliminary examination 14676 candidates were called for physical ability tests and those who were found successful therein were called for main written examination held on 30th July, 2006. The candidates who passed the main written examination, i.e. 4337 were called for interview which was held for about six days i.e., from 18th August, 2006 to 23rd August, 2006 and the final result was declared on 24th August, 2006. The selection has been made strictly in accordance with the Rules and the allegations in the writ petition are speculative, concocted and frivolous. 32. The petitioner in the rejoinder affidavit has not said anything new but has reiterated what she has said in the writ petition. 33. Writ Petitions No. 45014, 48041, 49167, 50372, 55007 and 55008 of 2006 are similar to writ petition (7th set) involving similar factual and legal aspects. 34. Writ Petition No. 51789 of 2006 (hereinafter referred to as “8th set”) is filed by one Dhan Devi Mishra, (Roll No. 2001130850) claiming the following reliefs : “(a) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the entire selection and appointments made in pursuance of the advertisement dated 14.5.05, for the post of Assistant Radio Operator. Writ Petition No. 51789 of 2006 (hereinafter referred to as “8th set”) is filed by one Dhan Devi Mishra, (Roll No. 2001130850) claiming the following reliefs : “(a) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the entire selection and appointments made in pursuance of the advertisement dated 14.5.05, for the post of Assistant Radio Operator. (b) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents authorities to produce the original record in relation to interview, tabulation sheet, criteria and norms for interview regarding the Assistant Radio Operator, State Level list of selected Assistant Radio Operators, comparative selection list of all the candidates interviewed according to their individual details like making/gradations by Committee Members/Chairman, candidates passed, academic qualifications trainings, etc. (c) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents authorities to produce the copy of the petitioner as to whether she has obtained the higher marks and she has been selected and appointed due to her excellent performance in the mains examination; (d) issue any other writ, order or direction in favour of the petitioner, as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the present facts and the circumstances of the case, so as to secure the ends of justice or else, the petitioner shall suffer irreparably. (e) award the cost of petition to the petitioner.” 35. It is averred that the petitioner appeared in the preliminary examination on 30th April, 2006, physical test on 2nd July, 2006 and the main written examination on 30th July, 2006. Thereafter she was interviewed at Lucknow on 19th August, 2006 but has not been finally selected. The final result has been prepared on the basis of marks obtained in the main written examination and interview. The petitioner correctly answered more than 175 questions in the main written examination which consisted of 180 objective questions and interview being of only 20 marks the petitioner could not have been declared unsuccessful. The interview was held unfairly inasmuch as, about 750 candidates were interviewed daily. There were two Boards and 5 to 10 candidates were called simultaneously to appear before the Interview Board which gave one or two minutes to the said candidates. Absurd and irrelevant questions were addressed to the candidates by the Interview Board. The interview was held unfairly inasmuch as, about 750 candidates were interviewed daily. There were two Boards and 5 to 10 candidates were called simultaneously to appear before the Interview Board which gave one or two minutes to the said candidates. Absurd and irrelevant questions were addressed to the candidates by the Interview Board. No guidelines had been framed for selection and appointment of A.R.W.O. and no statutory rules have also been framed. The selection is left to unfettered, uncanalised and arbitrary decision of the respondents. The interview finished at 9.30 P.M. on 23rd August, 2006 and in the morning of 24th August, 2006 a list of selected candidates was affixed on the notice board. No information or intimation sent to the selected candidates for medical test, yet by the afternoon of 24th August, 2006 medical test of successful candidates commenced showing that it was a pre determined selection. The petitioner is a victim of dishonesty and fraud. The process of interview was wholly illegal. Reservation quota has been ignored. The criteria and norms prescribed under law was not followed in making selection and the same has been made for extraneous consideration. The petitioner has summarised various irregularities which, according to her have been committed in selection in paragraph 47 of the petition, as under : “47. That, various irregularities were committed by the Respondents, while selecting/appointing the Assistant Radio Operator, by the Selection Committee, as stated in preceding paragraphs and the Respondents are also violating the norms and criteria which is prescribed under the law, following irregularities were committed by the Respondents : (a) That, in the list of selected Assistant Radio Operators there is no mention of any category like General, OBC, SC/ST, and other various category. (b) That, criteria and norms which has been prescribed under the law has not been followed by the Respondent, while considering the appointment/selection of Assistant Radio Operators. (c) That, rules regarding Reservation Quota of SC/ST have been openly flouted for extraneous consideration. (d) That, there is no consideration of ex-army man quota and same has been openly flouted for extraneous consideration. (e) That, the selection/appointment on the post of Assistant Radio Operator is illegal, arbitrary, and discriminatory because the criteria and eligibility which has been given in the advertisement dated 7.9.01 & 21.4.05, is not followed by the Respondents. (d) That, there is no consideration of ex-army man quota and same has been openly flouted for extraneous consideration. (e) That, the selection/appointment on the post of Assistant Radio Operator is illegal, arbitrary, and discriminatory because the criteria and eligibility which has been given in the advertisement dated 7.9.01 & 21.4.05, is not followed by the Respondents. (f) That, the selection and appointment on the post of Assistant Radio Operator is in violation and contravention of the Uttar Pradesh Police, Radio Service Rules, 1979. (g) That, number of candidates called for interview and on which grounds and basis have not been declared successful have been disclosed. (h) That, the State level main examination Merit list of successful Radio Operators have not been declared and published. (i) That, State list of selected Assistant Radio Operators have not been declared and published in any newspaper. (j) That, the criteria and norms for interview regarding Assistant Radio Operators, have not been disclosed by the respondents. (k) That, the criteria of preferences given by the selection committee/members/chairman to the candidates like N.C.C. Certificate, Ex-Serviceman Certificate/Quota, Handicapped Certificate/Quota, etc. have not been disclosed. (l) That, a comparative list of all candidates interviewed according to their merit etc. have not been disclosed by the Selection Committee. (m) That, merit list of Assistant Radio Operators in Police Radio Department, after passing the main examinations have not been prepared and disclosed. (n) That, the Selection Committee have not followed the directions of the Hon’ble Court in case of Ashok Kumar Yadav and others v. State of Haryana and another, AIR 1987 SC 454 , in which it is held that interview test should not be made decisive test for selecting and appointing candidates for the post and it is also held that excessive importance cannot be given to interview test and personality is required to be tested and the strength of character, personality and ability to be sudden eventualities etc.” 36. Allegations have also been made against Sri B.K. Bhalla, Chairman, Selection Committee and he is impleaded as respondent No. 5 in personal capacity in this petition. 37. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by respondents jointly. Allegations of extraneous consideration, irregularities etc. have been denied and it is said that the selection has been made strictly in accordance with law. 37. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by respondents jointly. Allegations of extraneous consideration, irregularities etc. have been denied and it is said that the selection has been made strictly in accordance with law. The petitioner’s non-selection is attributed due to her lower merit in the main written examination and interview no rejoinder affidavit has been filed. 38. Writ Petitions No. 52454, 51797, 51800, 51799, 53156, 53155, 54097, 47338, 56388, 52248, 53200, 69477, 52855, 62456, 6602 and 4520 of 2006, Writ Petitions No. 11548, 2108 and 10024 of 2007, are similar to writ petitions 8th Set. 39. The pleadings and grounds in writ petition No. 53336 of 2006 filed by Ritoo Singh are generally similar to the pleadings of writ petitions (2nd and 8th sets) but it further says that the petitioner being a female candidate ought to have been given preferential treatment under female quota which has been ignored and even the candidates who are not physically fit, under height, have been selected while the petitioner has been ignored. However, no detail of any such person who according to her has been selected despite lacking requisite physical fitness has been given in the writ petition. Writ Petitions No. 53106, 54235 and 47882 of 2006 and 9913 of 2007 are similar to writ petitions (2nd and 8th sets). 40. Writ Petitions No. 52703 and 52197 of 2006 are similar to writ petitions (2nd, 4th and 8th Sets) involving similar factual and legal aspects. 41. Writ Petitions No. 67089, 50270, 49161, 47039, 51238, 54939, 53834, 59463 and 54135 of 2006 are similar to writ petitions (4th and 8th Sets). However, in Writ Petitions No. 53834, 59463 and 54135 of 2006 the petitioners under the relief part have not challenged the selection and no writ of certiorari has been sought. The only relief sought is a writ of mandamus, restraining the respondent No. 2 from permitting the newly selected candidate to join on the post of A.R.W.O. 42. Writ Petitions No. 55732 and 61447 of 2006 are similar to writ petitions (4th, 6th and 8th sets). 43. Writ Petition No. 51008 of 2006 filed by Neema Yadav and others is similar to writ petitions (6th and 8th Sets). 44. Writ Petitions No. 55732 and 61447 of 2006 are similar to writ petitions (4th, 6th and 8th sets). 43. Writ Petition No. 51008 of 2006 filed by Neema Yadav and others is similar to writ petitions (6th and 8th Sets). 44. Writ Petition No. 51240 of 2006 (hereinafter referred to as “9th set”) has been filed by Anirudh Kumar Yadav who besides making general allegations of irregularities, without giving any details has challenged the selection. According to him, under the Rules, yearwise vacancies should have been determined and the selection ought to have been made accordingly which has not been done and, therefore, it vitiates the entire selection. He further says that he is holder of NCC ‘C’ certificate but the benefit thereof has not been given. 45. Facts of Writ Petition No. 53678 of 2006 are similar to that of writ petitions (9th Set). 46. Writ Petition No. 48476 of 2006 (hereinafter referred to as “10th set”) has been filed by single petitioner Hari Shanker challenging the entire selection on the post of A.R.W.O. pursuant to written examination dated 30.7.2006. He has further sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to declare result of Radio Operator Examination 2001-2005 and to give appointment to the candidates selected therein including the petitioner. It is said that the vacancies were advertised by respondent No. 2 for the post of A.R.W.O. in U.P. Police Radio Department in the year 2001. The procedure for selection included interview only. The petitioner applied and received a call letter for appearing in physical test and interview on 15.12.2001 pursuant whereto he appeared in the interview. Result, however, was not declared and the matter was kept pending. Thereafter respondent No. 2 again issued a letter dated 7.1.2005 requiring the petitioner to appear again for physical test and interview on 1.2.2005 referring to his application submitted in 2001. It was stated in the said letter that in place of earlier interview, the same is being held afresh due to change in reservation policy of the Government. In pursuance of the aforesaid letter also the petitioner appeared on 1.2.2005 and participated in physical test and interview but again result was not declared and despite several requests made by the petitioner the same was kept in abeyance. In pursuance of the aforesaid letter also the petitioner appeared on 1.2.2005 and participated in physical test and interview but again result was not declared and despite several requests made by the petitioner the same was kept in abeyance. Then for the third time respondent No. 2 issued a letter dated Nil informing the petitioner that written test would be held on 30th July, 2006. The petitioner’s roll number was mentioned as 611863 therein and it was also informed that he has been found successful in physical test and declared successful provisionally. It was also informed that written test will consist of objective questions and the examination would be held of two question papers. The petitioner appeared in the written test on 30.7.2006, result whereof has not been declared though the respondents have declared some other candidates successful. The entire process and the manner in which the respondents held selection are wholly illegal inasmuch as, they cannot change the procedure for selection later on and, therefore, they are obliged to declare result based on the test held in the year 2001. 47. The respondents No. 1 and 2 in their counter affidavit have said that the recruitment to the post of A.R.W.O. is covered by 1982 Rules which was amended by Amending Rules 2005. In accordance with 1982 Rules as they stood at the relevant time, an advertisement was published in the year 2001 notifying 890 vacancies of A.R.W.O. but for administrative reasons selection process kept in abeyance till 2004. During this period, 171 more vacancies occurred, hence a fresh advertisement was issued in the year 2004 inviting applications for filling 171 vacancies which occurred between 2001 to 2004 along with 890 vacancies which were already advertised. The selection hereat also could not proceed. In the meantime, 1982 Rules were amended by Amending Rules 2005 which came into operation on 31st March, 2005 whereby eligibility conditions and selection procedure was changed. The authority, therefore, decided to fill in all the vacancies in accordance with 1982 Rules as amended in 2005 and to make a fresh advertisement accordingly. This advertisement was challenged in writ petition No. 3784(S/S) of 2005, Atul Raj and others v. State of U.P. and others before the Lucknow Bench of this Court. The authority, therefore, decided to fill in all the vacancies in accordance with 1982 Rules as amended in 2005 and to make a fresh advertisement accordingly. This advertisement was challenged in writ petition No. 3784(S/S) of 2005, Atul Raj and others v. State of U.P. and others before the Lucknow Bench of this Court. An interim order was passed on 27.5.2005 making the selection in abeyance but later on vide order dated 26.10.2005 the interim order was modified and the respondent No. 3 was directed to keep 35 vacancies of A.R.W.O. unfilled until further orders of the Court and to complete selection process regarding rest of the vacancies expeditiously. Consequently, pursuant to the advertisement made on 14.5.2005 the selection proceeded further and after holding the physical test as well as preliminary test, the main written examination was held and those selected therein underwent interview and thereafter final result has been published on 24.8.2006. It is said that the result of the main written examination was notified on 9.8.2006 on the notice board of U.P. Police Radio Headquarters, Lucknow and was also made available through internet pursuant whereto the candidates appeared for interview between 18th and 23rd August, 2006. It is said that the petitioner could not have been selected due to his poor performance in the written test though he was afforded equal opportunity to perform alongwith others. 48. No rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the petitioner. 49. Writ Petition No. 53769 of 2006 is similar to that of writ petitions (10th set) involving similar factual and legal aspects. 50. Writ Petition No. 44901 of 2006 (hereinafter referred to as “11th set”) has been filed by three petitioners, namely, Km. Neeraj, Ajay Kumar Singh and Km. Priti Yadav. They have failed in the main written examination and thus the selection from that stage has been challenged and a mandamus has also been sought directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to appear in the interview to be conducted on 20th August, 2006. Selection has been challenged on the ground that it is disturbed due to political pressure, ulterior motive since the rate of each candidates is about Rs. 3 Lacs and those who deposited the same, have been selected and other eligible candidates have been declared failed. It is further said that three candidates of the same family have been selected though they were not eligible. 3 Lacs and those who deposited the same, have been selected and other eligible candidates have been declared failed. It is further said that three candidates of the same family have been selected though they were not eligible. There is no quota for handicapped persons, yet a handicapped candidate has been selected at serial No.12 and his roll number is 2004150431. The persons selected at serial No. 2 and 21 are the real sisters of the aforesaid physical handicapped candidate and her father is posted in the same Department. Therefore, due to his approach/influence the above candidates have been selected. It is further said that the petitioners appeared in the examination room, answer sheets of the examination were distributed to the candidates and they have filled up the answer sheets but after some time they were recollected again on the ground that the same were not distributed according to serial number. Thus there is possibility that the answer sheets of the petitioners have not been checked because their filled up answer sheets were again distributed. In the array of the parties, the petitioners have impleaded the following as respondents : (1) The State of U.P. through its Chief Secretary U.P. Government, Lucknow (2) Sri K.K. Saxena, Inspector General of Police, Lucknow (3) Sri Jagmohan Yadav, Inspector General of Police/Director (Telecommunication) Head Office Uttar Pradesh Police Radio, Mahanagar, Lucknow. (4) Sri B.K. Bhalla, Additional Deputy General of Police U.P. Government, Lucknow. (5) Sri R.S. Dwivedi, State Radio Officer, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow. (6) Sri Anil Kumar, State Radio Officer, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow. (7) Additional Radio Officer, Agra Region, Agra. 51. A counter affidavit on behalf of respondents has been filed by Sri Syed Zia Abbas Rizvi, Assistant Radio Officer (Cipher), U.P. Police Radio Headquarters, Mahanagar, Lucknow, denying the allegations of political pressure, extraneous consideration etc. and in respect to selection of three candidates of the same family it is said that the three candidates bearing roll number 2004150431, 2001130416 and 200505521 were declared successful in order of merit in written examination and the allegations otherwise are denied. It is said that the selection was made strictly in accordance with 1981 Rules as amended by the Amending Rules of 2005. 52. No rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the petitioners. 53. It is said that the selection was made strictly in accordance with 1981 Rules as amended by the Amending Rules of 2005. 52. No rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the petitioners. 53. Writ Petition No. 50430 of 2006 filed by Anita Singh and others is similar to writ petitions (6th and 11th sets) involving similar factual and legal aspects. 54. Writ Petition No. 988 of 2007 (hereinafter referred to as “12th set”) filed by single petitioner Kishan Kumar Yadav, challenges the entire selection made pursuant to the advertisement dated 21st April, 2005 on the ground that reservation for Other Backward Classes (in short OBC) has not been observed correctly. Rest of the grounds are similar to the writ petition (4th set). 55. Writ Petition No. 56455 of 2006 (hereinafter referred to as “13th set”) has been filed by single petitioner Km. Suman Dubey claiming that in the search result from internet she found that she was shown provisionally selected but she has not been issued any appointment letter which shows that the entire selection is arbitrary and discriminatory. 56. In the counter affidavit the respondents have denied the allegation and it is said that the petitioner has not been selected due to her poor performance and lower merit. With respect to the averments contend in para 10 of the counter affidavit about internet search it is said that the same are vague and incomplete. Learned Standing Counsel pointed out that Annexure 3 does not show as to on which date the said search result was obtained and whether it pertained to final result or an earlier, namely, the preliminary test or the main written test. He submit that in the final result placed on net on 24th August, 2006 the name of petitioner was not included. 57. Writ Petition No. 51406 of 2006 (hereinafter referred to as “14th set”) has been filed by single petitioner Bansh Bahadur Singh, an Ex-Serviceman stating that due to lack of information he could not appear in the pre-medical examination, therefore, he has been excluded from the list of finally selected candidates. It is said that the candidates were later on examined medically and therefore, the petitioner should not be denied selection and appointment only on the ground that he could not appear for pre-medical examination. It is said that the candidates were later on examined medically and therefore, the petitioner should not be denied selection and appointment only on the ground that he could not appear for pre-medical examination. He, therefore, has sought a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to allow him in medical examination and thereafter appoint him. He has not challenged the entire selection and there is no relief seeking any writ of certiorari quashing the entire selection. 58. The respondents in the counter affidavit have denied the allegation and said that the petitioner due to low merit could not be selected finally though he was considered in the category of Ex-Serviceman but the candidates having better merit got selected. 59. No rejoinder affidavit has been filed. 60. Though the names of a large number of Advocates were shown in the cause list as counsels for the petitioners but arguments have been advanced before this Court orally only by S/s M.L. Rai, K.C. Shukla, Girijesh Tewari, Om Prakash Tripathi and D.K. Singh. Some of the other counsels appearing in these matters have adopted the arguments of the above counsels. Rest of the counsels for the petitioners, neither appeared nor advanced any argument orally or in writing though the Court permitted all the counsels to do so. 61. As noted above, the impugned selection has been challenged on variety of grounds but during the course of arguments only the following aspects have been stressed and highlighted to question the selection: (I) Interview process of more than 4000 candidates completed within six days by two Interview Boards and the result was declared on the very next day, medical examination was completed within a day and the candidates were issued appointment letters and allowed to join which shows undue haste, nothing but a pre-determined act as the candidates were already known who have to be selected and, therefore, the respondents could complete the process of declaration of final result, medical examination, issuance of appointment letters and joining of the candidates concerned within a short period of a day or two. (II) Referring to a report prepared by a committee appointed by the State Government to analyse the recruitment of Police Officers in State of U.P. by the new Government in the year 2008 it is contended that therein several irregularities have been noticed in the selection and, therefore, the entire selection is vitiated in law and deserve to be quashed. (III) It was stressed upon the Court by learned counsels for the parties that considering the allegations in the writ petition and lack of specific reply on the part of the respondents in the counter affidavit, it is evident that the selection has not been held fairly and impartially and, therefore, this Court would be justified in calling upon the respondents to place the entire record of selection before this Court and the same may be perused by this Court itself to see as to whether there is any illegality or not. 62. Learned Standing Counsel supporting the stand of the respondents based on the averments contend in the counter affidavit, submits that the entire selection has been made fairly and, therefore, does not warrant any interference. 63. Before considering the rival submissions and validity, fairness and legality of the selection impugned in these writ petitions this Court find it necessary to place on record that of late we are flooded with similar kind of writ petitions challenging the selection in one or the other services in the State, or the instrumentality of the State, mainly on the ground of partiality, unfairness, and, extraneous consideration etc. The allegations serious enough against the authorities responsible for selection are being made by the candidates. The learned Standing Counsel did not dispute that regarding the police department itself, in the last more than two decades, there has not been even a single selection whether by direct recruitment or by promotion in respect to police officers/officials of subordinate rank which has not been assailed before this Court by one, two or more candidates making allegations of lack of transparency, fairness, corruption etc. It is true that most of such cases have failed but in some cases to some extent, the allegation have also been found correct, if not in entirety. 64. It is true that most of such cases have failed but in some cases to some extent, the allegation have also been found correct, if not in entirety. 64. It is high time when the Government must consider it seriously as to why such high level and widespread dissatisfaction, lack of confidence and faith in impartiality and fairness of the executive is increasing among the candidates appearing and aspiring for public offices and services in the State. The challenge is not casual or made in exceptional cases but is coming before this Court in a regular and routine manner. There was a time when the act of the State used to be considered as of highest impunity and impartiality unless proved to be otherwise which was a rarity but now-a-days deterioration of moral, ethical, social standards and values of society in general and public at large including those who are holding high offices in the State and its instrumentality probably is causing this dissatisfaction, making it easily believable to the public at large that the corruption and impartiality must have entered the selection unless proved otherwise by the State. This state of affairs is really disturbing and needs proper steps well in time at the hands of those who are responsible for generating this sort of sentiments, otherwise, it would be dangerous for the entire society and the nation at large. We must remind ourselves that dissatisfaction or discredit against a Government or Government agencies in the minds of the people at large, if continues to grow, may grew to the stage of protest which may sometimes turn into a revolution. It has happened in history and sometimes has turned in bloody war also. In the present day’s situation with the alarming increase of population, where there is lack of opportunity of public employment, if such stream is choked, the opportunity of employment is not made available to public fairly and impartially, it may create silently and sometimes explicitly a class, much larger than a controllable one, to exhibit their sentiments against the system in a way which may create law and order situation also. We cannot lose sight of this fact that rampant allegations of corruption against highly placed political persons and in executive authorities is a matter of routine now-a-days. We cannot lose sight of this fact that rampant allegations of corruption against highly placed political persons and in executive authorities is a matter of routine now-a-days. Simultaneously, we also cannot lose sight of the fact that the political persons and the executive against whom allegations of corruption etc. are levelled and action is taken, both being hand in gloves, are getting exonerated due to unsuccessful prosecution in the Court. There the prosecuting agency being the Executive itself, it is easily understandable as to how and why the powerful and mighty persons, despite serious allegations, escape the clutches of rule of law owing to lack of evidence though the fact remains that huge and colossal public revenue meant for and to be spent on the welfare of weaker section did not reach them and failed to attain its goal and has vanished in the meantime. It is really surprising that huge amount extinguished or vanished without making anyone responsible for the same or without inflicting any serious punishment upon those who are actually responsible for such misuse. To some extent this erosion in the public life has entered the judiciary also and of late the people have started showing their dissatisfaction in respect to those holding judicial offices. It was a rare phenomenon about two or three decades back but now slowly the situation is getting grim. 65. This Court feels that time has come when the State and all those who have the authority and are responsible for keeping the things straight must consider these matters with utmost urgency and try to find out ways and means to check such huge erosion of confidence and faith in the system otherwise, it may prove to be disastrous at some point of time. 66. Coming to these writ petitions this Court finds that very serious and disturbing allegations have been made by one or the other petitioners though neither they have been able to give any material in support of their allegations nor the allegations have been made with definite and proper facts which may satisfy the discharge of initial burden on the part of the litigant who challenges the action of State on the ground of extraneous consideration, favouritism, impartiality etc. so as to enable this Court to call upon the respondents seriously to dispel those allegations and show fairness and legality in the selection made by them by placing material on record. 67. Judicial review in such matters is not extended to the extent of making a fishing and roving inquiry as and when some allegations are made that a selection is vitiated on account of corrupt activities, favouritism, unfairness etc. In such matters, scope of judicial review is limited. It is not an appeal from a decision but is a review of the manner in which the decision has been taken i.e., whether there is any illegality in the decision making process. Judicial review is entirely different from an ordinary appeal. Lord Scarman in Nottinghamshire Country Council v. Secretary of State for the Environment, 1986 A.C. 240 put a note of caution for exercise of power of judicial review in the following words : “Judicial review is a great weapon in the hands of the Judges; but the Judges must observe the constitutional limits set by our parliamentary system upon the exercise of this beneficent power.” 68. The grounds on which an administrative decision can be brought within the purview of judicial review may be classified in the following three categories (1) Illegality (2) Irrationality, namely, Wednesbury unreasonableness and (3) Procedural impropriety. 69. Something is “illegal” when it is contrary to the statute or set principles of law. The “irrational” means “Wednesbury unreasonableness”. It applies to a decision which is so outrageous in its defiance of logic or of accepted moral standard that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question on the given facts and circumstances would come to such conclusion. In other words, it can be said to be another facet of perversity. The Court, while applying the doctrine of “Wednesbury unreasonableness” would not go into the correctness of the decision and would not substitute the decision of the administrative authority. 70. In State of Rajasthan and another v. Mohammed Ayub Naz, AIR 2006 SC 856 , the Court held that the common thread running in all these decisions is that the Court should not interfere with the Administrator’s decision unless it was illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or was shocking to the consciousness of the Court in the sense that it was in defiance of logic or moral standards. In view of what has been stated in Wednesbury case, (1947) 2 All ER 680 (CA) the Court would not go into the correctness of the choice made by the Administrator open to him and the Court should not substitute its decision for that of Administrator. The scope of judicial review is limited to the deficiency in the decision making process and not the decision itself. 71. If the action or decision is perverse or is such that no reasonable body of persons, properly informed, could come to, or has been arrived at by the authority misdirecting itself by adopting a wrong approach, or has been influenced by some extraneous matters, the Court would be justified in interfering with the same, but merely for the reason that another view would have been a better view, the decision taken by the authority otherwise which is also a probable and reasonable view shall not be interfered. (Refer to Barium Chemicals, AIR 1967 SC 296). In Smt. Shalini Soni v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 431 , the Court observed : “It is an unwritten rule of the law, constitutional and administrative, that whenever a decision-making function is entrusted to the subjective satisfaction of a statutory functionary, there is an implicit obligation to apply his mind to pertinent and proximate matters only, eschewing the irrelevant and the remote.” 72. Prof. De Smith’s treatise ‘Judicial Review of Administrative Action’ (4th Edn.) at page 285-86 succinctly summarizing several principles formulated by the Courts in various decision provides : “The authority in which a discretion is vested can be compelled to exercise that discretion, but not to exercise it in any particular manner. In general, a discretion must be exercised only by the authority to which it is committed. That authority must genuinely address itself to the matter before it : it must not act under the dictation of another body or disable itself from exercising a discretion in each individual case. In the purported exercise of its discretion it must not do what it has been forbidden to do, nor must it do what it has not been authorized to do. In the purported exercise of its discretion it must not do what it has been forbidden to do, nor must it do what it has not been authorized to do. It must act in good faith, must have regard to all relevant considerations, must not be swayed by irrelevant considerations, must not seek to promote purposes alien to the letter or to the spirit of the legislation that gives it power to act and must not act arbitrarily or capriciously. Nor where a judgment must be made that certain facts exit can a discretion be validly exercised on the basis of an erroneous assumption about those facts. These several principles can conveniently be grouped in two main categories; failure to exercise a discretion, and excess or abuse of discretionary power. The two classes are not, however, mutually exclusive. Thus, discretion may be improperly fettered because irrelevant considerations have been taken into account and where an authority hands over its discretion to another body, it acts ultra vires. Nor, is it possible to differentiate with precision the grounds of invalidity contained within each category.” 73. In Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corp., 1947 (2) All ER 680 (CA), the question with respect to principles relating to judicial review or administrative or statutory direction was considered and is treated to be a landmark decision, commonly known as ‘Wednesbury case’. Lord Greene in the following passage held : “It is true that discretion must be exercised reasonably. Now what does that mean? Lawyers familiar with the phraseology used in relation to exercise of statutory directions often use the word ‘unreasonable’ in a rather comprehensive sense. It has frequently been used and is frequently used as a general description of the things that must not be done. For instance, a person entrusted with a discretion must, so to speak, direct himself properly in law. He must call his own attention to the matters, which he is bound to consider. He must exclude from his consideration matters, which are irrelevant to what he has to consider. If he does not obey those rules, he may truly be said and often is said, to be acting ‘unreasonably’. Similarly, there may be something so absurd that no sensible person could even dream that it lay within the powers of the authority………….In another, it is taking into consideration extraneous matters. If he does not obey those rules, he may truly be said and often is said, to be acting ‘unreasonably’. Similarly, there may be something so absurd that no sensible person could even dream that it lay within the powers of the authority………….In another, it is taking into consideration extraneous matters. It is unreasonable that it might almost be described as being done in bad faith; and in fact, all these things run into one another.” 74. These principles were further summarized in Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service, 1984 (3) All ER 935 (CCSU case) and the aforesaid principles were categorized as illegality, procedural impropriety and irrationality discussed in brief hereinabove and it would be useful to remind in the words of Lord Diplock the said three rules as under : “………….Judicial review has I think, developed to a stage today when, without reiterating any analysis of the steps by which the development has come about, one can conveniently classify under three heads the grounds on which administrative action is subject to control by judicial review. The first ground I would call ‘illegality’, the second ‘irrationality’ and the third ‘procedural impropriety’. That is not to say that further development on a case-by-case basis may not in course of time add further grounds. I have in mind particularly the possible adoption in the future of the principle of ‘proportionality’ which is recognized in the administrative law of several of our fellow members of the European Economic Community.” 75. These two cases oft quoted with approval and followed by the Apex Court of this Country in a catena of cases, some of which are Union of India and another v. G. Ganayutham, 1997 (7) SCC 463 ; Indian Railway Constructions Co. Ltd. v. Ajay Kumar, 2003 (4) SCC 579 ; People’s Union of Civil Liberties and another v. Union of India and others, 2004 AIR SCW 379 and State of N.C.T. of Delhi and another v. Sanjeev @ Bittoo, 2005 AIR SCW 1987. 76. Ltd. v. Ajay Kumar, 2003 (4) SCC 579 ; People’s Union of Civil Liberties and another v. Union of India and others, 2004 AIR SCW 379 and State of N.C.T. of Delhi and another v. Sanjeev @ Bittoo, 2005 AIR SCW 1987. 76. In the matter of challenge to a selection, deprecating the practice of the High Court to go on its own for investigation instead of considering the pleadings and material placed by the party who challenges the selection, the Apex Court in Jyotish Kaiborta and others v. State of Assam and others, (2009) 4 SCC 516 , referring to the case of Sadananda Halo and others v. Momtaz Ali Sheikh and others, (2008) 4 SCC 619 quoted para 58 thereof as under : “It is settled law that in such writ petitions a roving inquiry on the factual aspect is not permissible. The High Court not only engaged itself into a non-permitted fact finding exercise but also went on to rely on the findings of the amicus curiae, or as the case may be, the scrutiny team, which in our opinion was inappropriate. While testing the fairness of the selection process wherein thousands of candidates were involved, the High Court should have been slow in relying upon such microscopic findings. It was not for the High Court to place itself into a position of a fact finding commission, that too, more particularly at the instance of those petitioners who were unsuccessful candidates. The High Court should, therefore, have restricted itself for the Selection Committee and also in the process assumed the role of the respondents. Unfortunately, the High Court took it upon itself the task of substituting itself for the Selection Committee and also in the process assumed the role of an appellate tribunal which was, in our opinion, not proper. Thus, the High Court converted this writ petition into a public interest litigation without any justification.” 77. Unfortunately, the High Court took it upon itself the task of substituting itself for the Selection Committee and also in the process assumed the role of an appellate tribunal which was, in our opinion, not proper. Thus, the High Court converted this writ petition into a public interest litigation without any justification.” 77. Considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and the first aspect of undue haste in finalising the selection after completion of interview on 23.8.2006, I am of the view that no doubt the petitioners have been successful in creating an atmosphere of strong suspicion on the propriety of the act of the respondents but unfortunately, it could not cross the demarcating line turning suspicion into satisfaction or proof justifying interference on the part of the Court of law. It is well settled that a suspicion, howsoever strong and high it might be cannot replace a proof. 78. In Noor Agha v. State of Punjab and another, 2008(56) B.L.J.R. 2254, the Apex Court observed in para 83 of the judgment observed : “It is well settled that suspicion, howsoever high may be, can under no circumstances be held to be a substitute for legal evidence.” 79. The above view was reiterated in Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank and others, 2009(2) SCC 570 . 80. Whenever a challenge is made on the ground of impartiality, unfairness, etc. in a matter of selection, the Court has to proceed in the matter with care so as not to influence its decision on strong suspicion unless there is material, sufficient to arrive at a conclusion that there actually existed the circumstances which have resulted in an illegal and unjustified selection. In other words, the impartiality, favouritism, corruption etc. has to be proved by positive material and in the absence of such proof, mere suspicion even if very strong would not justify interference by a Court of law with the selection which has already attained finality otherwise. 81. It is true that in six days interview of more than 4000 candidates show hurriedness in the matter but then when this Court go further, it finds that there were two Interview Boards. 81. It is true that in six days interview of more than 4000 candidates show hurriedness in the matter but then when this Court go further, it finds that there were two Interview Boards. As informed by the learned Standing Counsel and admitted by learned counsel for the parties who advanced oral arguments before this Court, the two Boards had been working even in late night to hold interview on all the six days. From some of the writ petitions it is evident and it is also the case of some of the petitioners themselves that interview continued even beyond 9 p.m. As admitted by the parties, interview commenced at 10 a.m. in the morning and if we take the duration of interview from 10 a.m. to 9 p.m. on six days, it would mean that in total 66 hours were available for the two Interview Boards to complete interview of 4337 candidates who were called. Actually 4279 candidates appeared in interview. 66 hours means 3960 minutes. Excluding one hour for lunch per day, there remains 3600 minutes. Therefore, each Interview Board at least had 3600 minutes to interview 2139 candidates in six days, meaning thereby that for each candidate there was slightly more than one and half minute. Apparently, this period appears to be a bit short but then we have to consider the nature of the post, purpose for which interview was held and the total marks of interview in the total assessment of selection i.e., the extent of significance of the interview, it finds place in the selection. 82. The total marks allotted for selection were 200, out of which 180 marks were earmarked for written examination and only 20 marks were assigned for interview. Maximum interview marks in the selection shared only 10%. The post in question was one of the lowest post in the cadre of Radio Service, i.e., A.R.W.O. The qualification for the post in question is High School or equivalent examination with Science subject. The minimum age is 18 years and maximum is 22 years subject to relaxation in respect to the reserved category candidates. The preliminary examination which was conducted consisted of 150 maximum marks and was held in General Hindi, General English, General Science and Mental Ability Test. The minimum age is 18 years and maximum is 22 years subject to relaxation in respect to the reserved category candidates. The preliminary examination which was conducted consisted of 150 maximum marks and was held in General Hindi, General English, General Science and Mental Ability Test. The extent of physical fitness to be possessed by candidates is provided in Annexure-A read with Rule 15(2)(c) of 1982 Rules as amended in 2005. Therefore, technical and other expertise of the candidates had already been examined in the written test. Their physical fitness has also been examined already since only those were called for written test who qualified the physical test and preliminary examination. Interview, therefore, in these circumstances, appears to with an objective of general appearance of the candidate concerned, his manner and behaviour and nothing more than that. In the system of examination followed by respondents, though interview has importance but of lesser significance since other requisite aspects have already stood examined. For the purpose of finalising the selection, the respondents have used information technology also and results have been prepared on computers. Preparation of result through computer does not take much time and require only feeding of information. Data pertaining to written test was already available on computer since copies were examined by applying OMR method. Only the marks of respective candidates obtained in the interview were to be fed in. It is not improbable to feed marks obtained by the candidates interviewed everyday in the computer and as soon as the interview of last candidate finished, the result would be available on the system. Everyday about 356 candidates have been interviewed by each Interview Board. If marks are entered in the system everyday the result of final selection could have been available to the respondents on the completion of interview of the last candidate. Therefore, with regard to the ground that the interview was completed in six days and the result was declared on the very next day, this Court finds that considering the pace with which the State normally acts, the action appears to be very hasty one but not improbable and impossible not at all. 83. The candidates who were declared successful were about 1000 & odd and they could have been medically examined also within a day or two. 83. The candidates who were declared successful were about 1000 & odd and they could have been medically examined also within a day or two. In the absence of anything more, I find it difficult to hold the entire selection, impugned in these writ petitions, illegal and influenced by corrupt practices, favouritism, impartiality, etc. merely on the ground that the selection was finalised at a quick pace. In the absence of anything further or any irregularity of general nature pointed out by the respondents otherwise, I do not find it a sufficient ground to interfere with the impugned selection merely on the ground that the interview was completed within six days and selection finalised, result declared and person completed formalities and joined within a day or two thereafter. 84. A similar issue came up for consideration before the apex Court in Sadananda Halo (supra) where the High Court has held a selection vitiated in law on the ground that in a day more than 250 candidates could not have been interviewed and violation thereof means no proper interview took place, the Apex Court said : “We are afraid we cannot uphold that finding. Learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench seem to have proceeded more on imagination than the reality. Such a benchmark could not have been fixed generally and only because that benchmark was allegedly breached, the selection could not have been found fault with in a mechanical and mathematical manner. Instead of testing the matter on the basis of the ground realities for each District on the basis of material made available by the State, a mechanical approach, in our opinion, could not have been taken by the High Court.” 85. The Apex Court in Sadananda Halo (supra) distinguished the observations in Satpal and others v. State of Haryana, 1995 Suppl. (1) SCC 206 as under : “The Courts below seems to have relied upon Satpal’s case (supra). That was a case regarding the selection of Patwaris who obviously have a entirely different and more onerous duties than those of the constables in police. A Patwari is a basic Revenue Officer in the village and has to maintain the revenue records. (1) SCC 206 as under : “The Courts below seems to have relied upon Satpal’s case (supra). That was a case regarding the selection of Patwaris who obviously have a entirely different and more onerous duties than those of the constables in police. A Patwari is a basic Revenue Officer in the village and has to maintain the revenue records. In para 6 this Court observed that : “........Even if one were to assume that the committee devoted as many as 12 hours i.e. from 9.00 a.m. to 9.00 p.m. on a single day for interviewing candidates it would not be able to devote more than two minutes’ time per candidate.” It was on the above basis that it was found that it was impossible for the authorities to conduct the interviews of as many as 400-600 candidates in a single day. The Court also observed, considering the shortest time available to interview, that : “It is difficult to hold that the interviews were meaningful and purposive to enable proper assessment of the knowledge and suitability of each candidate for the post”. In our opinion these observations would be most apposite in respect of the selection of a Patwari who is required to have the knowledge regarding the records, etc. Such is certainly not the requirement for the constables.” 86. However, in respect to the constables’ selection and the time for interview the Apex Court further held as under : “In the present case the qualifications were known. The physical standards of each candidate were very much there before the interviewing Board and, therefore, in our opinion, there was no necessity to test the knowledge of maintenance of revenue records, rural economy and culture as was required for the post of Patwari. The merits of the candidates were also recorded regarding their physical efficiency. Therefore, even less than three minutes’ time was enough for each candidate. We would also have to give due credit to the expertise of Selection Committee.” Further in para 30 the Court said : “Merely because there were a large number of candidates who appeared on two days, cannot ipso facto lead to the conclusion that the process of selection was a farce and fair chance was not given. Normally experienced persons are appointed as members of the Selection Committee and how much time should be spent with a candidate would vary from person to person. Normally experienced persons are appointed as members of the Selection Committee and how much time should be spent with a candidate would vary from person to person. Merely because only two days were spent in conducting the interviews for the selection of Class-IV posts cannot lead to the conclusion that the process of selection was not proper.” 87. Coming to other aspects of the matter, the general allegations that the reservation quota of SC, ST, OBC, Ex-serviceman, dependent of freedom fighter, women, etc. has not been adhered to; some of the candidates who have failed or did not possess requisite eligibility, suitability or qualification have been selected; year-wise vacancies of in accordance with Rules ought to have been taken recruitment but the vacancies of various years have been calculated; the interview was held arbitrarily since irrelevant questions were asked etc., have not been substantiated by proper and specific pleadings placing reliable material. To substantiate the same, vague and general allegations have been made. Learned counsels who advanced the oral submissions repeatedly requested the Court, during the course of arguments to call for entire records pertaining the selection and to peruse the same so as to find out whether the allegations made by them are correct. In this regard learned counsels for the petitioners also stated at the Bar that in pursuance of the directions of Director General of Police vide his letter dated 13.6.2007 an enquiry was directed to be made in respect of various complaints of irregularities committed in the selection impugned in these bunch of the cases. A committee consisting of Sri Shailja Kant Mishra, Additional Director General of Police, ISBF & STF, Lucknow, Sri Sulkhan Singh, Inspector General of Police, PAC Headquarters U.P., Lucknow and Sri Rajiv Sabharwal, Senior Superintendent of Police, Kanpur Nagar was constituted, which submitted its report dated 29.9.2007 verifying a number of irregularities/illegalities committed in the above selection and, therefore, recommended for cancellation of the entire selection to hold a fresh selection. They requested this Court to take into consideration the said report and in the light of the finding therein to quash the entire selection. A photostat copy of the aforesaid report has been made available to the Court by learned Standing Counsel. 88. They requested this Court to take into consideration the said report and in the light of the finding therein to quash the entire selection. A photostat copy of the aforesaid report has been made available to the Court by learned Standing Counsel. 88. Before coming to the aforesaid report it would be appropriate to remind the principle of pleadings where certain act of the State is challenged on the ground of factual irregularities and illegalities. It is well settled that a litigant, who makes allegations of irregularities or illegalities committed by the State authorities, in performing statutory duties must plead specifically and discharge his burden of initial proof by placing relevant material to substantiate the pleading and only thereafter the Court can require the State to repel the allegations which, prima facie, are substantiated by the party who challenges the same. 89. In Bharat Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 1988 SC 2181 the Apex Court held that “a party raising the point must plead and annex to the petition not only the facts but also evidence in proof of the facts in a writ petition.” 90. The view taken in Bharat Singh (supra) has been followed by a Full Bench of this Court in Bhupendra Nath Tripathi v. State of U.P. and others, 2009(1) AWC 769 . 91. In para 42 of the judgment in Sadananda Halo (supra), the Apex Court further said : “It is settled law that in such writ petitions a roving inquiry on the factual aspect is not permissible. The High Court not only engaged itself into a non-permitted fact-finding exercise but also went on to rely on the findings of the Amicus Curiae, or as the case may be, the Scrutiny Team, which in our opinion was inappropriate. While testing the fairness of the selection process wherein thousands of candidates were involved, the High Court should have been slow in relying upon such microscopic findings. It was not for the High Court to place itself into a position of a fact-finding commission, that too, more particularly at the instance of those petitioners who were unsuccessful candidates. The High Court should, therefore, have restricted itself to the pleadings in the writ petition and the say of the respondents. It was not for the High Court to place itself into a position of a fact-finding commission, that too, more particularly at the instance of those petitioners who were unsuccessful candidates. The High Court should, therefore, have restricted itself to the pleadings in the writ petition and the say of the respondents. Unfortunately, the High Court took it upon itself the task of substituting itself for the Selection Committee and also in the process assumed the role of an Appellate Tribunal which was, in our opinion, not proper. Thus, the High Court converted this writ petition into a public interest litigation without any justification.” (Emphasis supplied by the Court) 92. In Jyotish Kaiborta (supra) also the Apex Court considering a similar aspect referred para 65 of Sadananda Halo (supra) as under : “We also do not approve of the approach adopted by the learned Single Judge of the High Court as going all the way into the facts and the microscopic details not via the pleadings of the parties but on the basis of an unnecessary investigation." 93. In Vimal Chand Ghevarchand Jain and others v. Ramakant Eknath Jadoo, (2009) 5 SCC 713 it was held that “the pleadings not to be considered provided any evidence in support thereof had been adduced.” 94. In State of West Bengal and others v. Readers West Bengal Registered ................... Association and others, JT 2009(8) SC 531 it was held as under : “A writ petitioner has to stand on his own legs and has to rely on the pleadings in the writ petition.” 95. Dealing a similar issue as referred in this writ petition, regarding undue urgency and interview in which a large number of candidates were interviewed in six days with regard to requirement of pleading in Sadanand Halo (supra) the Apex Court observed : “This is apart from the fact that the Courts below did not have any tangible evidence regarding the interviews being farcical except the self-serving statement made by the unsuccessful candidates in the writ petitions. The learned Judges even did not have the reasons for which the unsuccessful candidates were rejected. We, therefore, do not see any reason as to how a concrete finding could have been given that the Selection Board could interview only 250 candidates per day and not more.” 96. The learned Judges even did not have the reasons for which the unsuccessful candidates were rejected. We, therefore, do not see any reason as to how a concrete finding could have been given that the Selection Board could interview only 250 candidates per day and not more.” 96. In absence of proper pleadings and material to substantiate the allegations, it would not be proper for the Court to act as an investigating agency for the benefit of the party who is making the allegations or to find out something in favour of the allegation made by the said party. 97. However, still in order to satisfy the conscience of the Court so that if a serious illegality going to the root of the matter has been committed, it may not go unnoticed conferring illegal benefit upon a person(s) to enjoy the public office entering therein illegally, this Court has considered very meticulously the report dated 29.9.2007 submitted by the enquiry committee constituted as referred above. It appears therefrom that total 161758 candidates were called for preliminary examination, 8779 candidates were called for the main written examination, 4337 candidates were called for interview and 1086 candidates were ultimately selected. One of the objections noticed by the committee is that in accordance with Rule-15 (2)(B) of 1982 Rules, ten times of the number of the vacancies the candidates ought to have been called for physical test meaning thereby, only 10807 candidates ought to have been called though all 161758 candidates participated in the test. Further for interview three times of the number of vacancies candidates should have been called meaning thereby that 3258 candidates only should have been called while in fact 4337 candidates were called for interview. Giving a break up of vertical reservation-wise categories it has found the following candidates called in different categories for interview. CATEGORIES OF VERTICAL RESERVATION. Sl. Category Prescribed No. of total Candidates called No. percentage vacancies against vacancies according to determined reservation according to reservation 1 Unreserved 50 543 1194 2 Other Backward Class 27 294 2155 3 Scheduled Caste 21 228 916 4 Scheduled Tribe 02 21 71 5 Total 100 1086 4336 CATEGORIES OF HORIZONTAL RESERVATION. Sl. CATEGORIES OF VERTICAL RESERVATION. Sl. Category Prescribed No. of total Candidates called No. percentage vacancies against vacancies according to determined reservation according to reservation 1 Unreserved 50 543 1194 2 Other Backward Class 27 294 2155 3 Scheduled Caste 21 228 916 4 Scheduled Tribe 02 21 71 5 Total 100 1086 4336 CATEGORIES OF HORIZONTAL RESERVATION. Sl. Category Prescribed No. of total Candidates called No. percentage vacancies against vacancies according to determined reservation according to reservation 1 Women 20 217 712 2 Dependents of freedom 02 22 63 fighters 3 Ex-Servicemen 05 54 145 98. The report shows that in fact only 4279 candidates appeared in interview and 58 were absent. The category-wise candidates who appeared for interview are as under : General 1174 Backward Class 2132 Scheduled Caste 903 Scheduled Tribe 70 Total 4279 Women 700 Ex-servicemen 142 Dependents of freedom fighter 63 99. Considering the allegations of bribe and selection of ineligible and unqualified candidates, its conclusion is as under : I. Physical Examination—In respect to some of candidates it has noticed overwriting/cutting without being signed by the examiner of the Chairman of the selection committee. II. Main Written Examination : (a) Amongst the selected candidates 433 OMR sheets of first and second question papers were such where answers were changed after applying whitener/eraser and many of such candidates have been selected. However, in the list of such candidates in respect to question paper No. 1 the committee has given reference of 109 such answer sheets and with respect to question paper No. 2 it has given reference of 104 answer sheets. (b) One candidate instead of black/blue ink has filled in details of his roll number, class and sex by pencil. 3. Interview—Some of the candidates who have secured higher marks in written test have been given very low mark in interview and, therefore were deprived of selection. The committee gave reference of five such candidates. Regarding process of interview at page 29 of the report the committee has noticed the statement of Sri G.P. Kanaujia, Superintendent of Police, one of the member of the selection committee that initially candidates were called for interview singly but when all the candidates called on a particular date, they found difficult to be interviewed on the same day, thereafter four candidates at a time were called and each one was interviewed asking questions separately and thereafter marks were awarded. With respect to the number of candidates called for interview being more than three times, the said witness has informed that candidates equal to three times the number of vacancies were called for interview but such candidates who secured equal marks were all called and therefore, the number of candidates called for interview increased. 100. After recording oral evidence, the committee while analysing the matter has noticed that forensic laboratory has confirmed the use of whitener in the answer sheets of first question paper of 91 candidates and answer sheets of second question paper of 60 candidates. However, the Director, Forensic Laboratory, Lucknow recommended further examination by Government Examiner of questioned documents. Thereafter, it has observed about some negligent activities of the selection committee but found nothing to substantiate the allegation of bribe and extraneous consideration in the above selection. After going through the entire report, I do not find any such serious material illegalities noticed by the said committee which may warrant cancellation of entire selection. If someone has been selected despite certain irregularities and they are identifiable for their fault, the entire selection cannot be cancelled at all in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court. 101. In Union of India v. O. Chakradhar, 2002(3) SCC 146 the Apex Court in para 8 of the judgment said : “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.” 102. The only way out would be to cancel the whole selection. Motive behind the irregularities committed also has its relevance.” 102. In Union of India v. Rajesh P.U., Puthuvalnikathu and another, 2003 (7) SCC 285 in para-6 of the judgment the Apex Court has held : “In the light of the above and in the absence of any specific or categorical finding supported by any concrete and relevant material that widespread infirmities of an all pervasively 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 the 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 the other reasons. Applying a unilaterally rigid and arbitrary standard to cancel the entirety of the selections despite the firm and positive information that except 31 of such selected candidates, no infirmity could be found with reference to other, is nothing but total disregard of relevancies and allowing to be carried away by irrelevancies, giving a complete go by to contextual considerations throwing to the winds the principle 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.” 103. From internal page 6 of the report of the Committee it does appear that the inquiry sought to be made on the allegations made by certain Members of Legislative Assembly that the selection was made by accepting heavy bribe and by committing serious illegalities in the selection but in the entire report the committee has not found or recorded any finding with respect to the allegation of bribe in the above selection. With respect to other aspects of the matter, I find that in absence of selected candidates having been impleaded in these writ petitions it would not be proper or justified to quash the selection of certain individuals on the ground of alleged irregularities. 104. With respect to other aspects of the matter, I find that in absence of selected candidates having been impleaded in these writ petitions it would not be proper or justified to quash the selection of certain individuals on the ground of alleged irregularities. 104. Regarding non-observance of reservation quota etc., I do not find any finding recorded by the committee. Some of the writ petitions have been filed even before declaration of the final result but the candidates after having failed at the stage of preliminary test or main written test have challenged selection on the ground that it has not been conducted in accordance with the rules without substantiating the same. Even the Rules of Selection which allegedly violated are not specified. These writ petitions cannot sustain for the reason that once a candidate participated in selection in accordance with the procedure notified and advertised, he cannot challenge the rules of selection after he is declared unsuccessful. 105. In Madan Lal v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, JT 1995 (2) SC 291, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that once a person has taken a chance in the selection, he cannot resile back subsequently after having found himself unsuccessful and cannot be allowed to challenge the entire selection. 106. In Union of India and another v. N. Chandrashekharan and others, JT 1998 (1) SC 295, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under : “It is not in dispute that all the candidates were made aware of the procedure for promotion before they sat for the written test and before they appeared before the Departmental Promotion Committee. Therefore, they cannot turn around and contend later when they found they were not selected by challenging that procedure and contending that the marks prescribed for interview and confidential reports are disproportionately high and the authorities cannot fix a minimum to be secured either at interview or in the assessment on confidential report.” 107. In Utkal University etc. v. Dr. N.C. Sarangi and others, JT 1999 (1) SC 101 wherein it was held as under : “Both the University as well as the selected candidate have pointed out that this fact was known to the first respondent throughout. He did not, at any times, objected to the composition of the Selection Committee. He objected only after the selection was over and he was not selected. He did not, at any times, objected to the composition of the Selection Committee. He objected only after the selection was over and he was not selected. This would amount to waiver of such objection on the part of the first respondent.” 108. In Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla, 2002 (6) SCC 127 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under : “The law seems to be well settled that in the event a candidate appears at the interview and participates therein, only because the result of the interview is not “palatable” to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or there was some lacuna in the process.” 109. Following the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court, some of them referred to hereinabove, an Hon’ble Single Judge of this Court has also taken the same view in Kavindra Kumar v. Deputy Inspector General and others, 2003 (1) ESC 235 wherein it was held as under : “It is thus held that these writ petitions, challenging the criterion for promotion, are not maintainable at the instance of candidates who have participated in the selection without raising any objection.” 110. This Court has also taken similar view in Special Appeal No. 1222 of 2005, Km. Saurabh Vibhushan v. State of U.P. and others, decided on 11.9.2006 wherein it was held as under : “Now, after having failed to qualify in the selection the appellant has challenged the very qualification on the basis whereof the aforesaid selection has been made. In our view, the appellant having availed the opportunity of participating in the selection cannot be permitted to challenge the norms of the aforesaid selection.” 111. In our view, the appellant having availed the opportunity of participating in the selection cannot be permitted to challenge the norms of the aforesaid selection.” 111. Relying on the above authorities, a Division Bench of this Court (of which I was also a Member) in Virendra Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P. and others, 2008(2) ESC 1028 (DB) held : "In the present case also, the petitioners with open eyes knowing the procedure of selection actually participated and only when the selection was finalized and promotion orders were issued, noticing that he has failed in the selection, he has challenged the very basis, i.e., the procedure applied by the respondents for the said selection and, therefore, the settled exposition of law, as discussed above, that no one can turn around and challenge the process of selection after having participated therein and after finding him unsuccessful would apply with full force in the present case.” 112. In some of the writ petitions allegations of mala fide of even the Chief Minister have been levelled but without substantiating the same. Besides he has also not been impleaded in most of these writ petitions. It is well settled law that the plea of mala fide cannot be entertained by the Court if the person against whom mala fide is alleged is not impleaded eo-nomine. The Apex Court in State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 222 in para 55 of the judgment, the Apex Court held : “It is a settled law that the person against whom mala fides or bias was imputed should be impleaded eo nomine as a party respondent to the proceedings and given an opportunity to meet those allegations. In his/her absence no enquiry into those allegations would be made. Otherwise it itself is violative of the principles of natural justice as it amounts to condemning a person without an opportunity. Admittedly, both R.K. Singh and G.N. Sharma were not impleaded. On this ground alone the High Court should have stopped enquiry into the allegation of mala fides or bias alleged against them.” (emphasis added) 113. Otherwise it itself is violative of the principles of natural justice as it amounts to condemning a person without an opportunity. Admittedly, both R.K. Singh and G.N. Sharma were not impleaded. On this ground alone the High Court should have stopped enquiry into the allegation of mala fides or bias alleged against them.” (emphasis added) 113. In J.N. Banavalikar v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, AIR 1996 SC 326 in para 21 of the judgment, it has been held as under : “Further in the absence of impleadment of the……….the person who had allegedly passed mala fide order in order to favour such junior doctor, any contention of mala fide action in fact i.e. malice in fact should not be countenanced by the Court.” 114. In A.I.S.B. Officers Federation and others v. Union of India and others, JT 1996 (8) SC 550 in para 23, the Hon’ble Apex Court has said where a person, who has passed the order and against whom the plea of mala fide has been taken has not been impleaded, the petitioner cannot be allowed to raise the allegations of mala fide. The relevant observation of the Apex Court relevant are reproduced as under : “The person against whom mala fides are alleged must be made a party to the proceeding. Board of Directors of the Bank sought to favour respondents 4 and 5 and, therefore, agreed to the proposal put before it. Neither the Chairman nor the Directors, who were present in the said meeting, have been impleaded as respondents. This being so the petitioners cannot be allowed to raise the allegations of mala fide, which allegations, in fact, are without merit.” (emphasis added) 115. In Federation of Railway Officers Association v. Union of India, AIR 2003 SC 1344 it has been held as under : “That allegations regarding mala fides cannot be vaguely made and it must be specified and clear. In this context, the concerned Minister who is stated to be involved in the formation of new Zone at Hazipur is not made a party who can meet the allegations.” (emphasis added) 116. The aforesaid view has been followed by various Division Benches of this Court including Dr. Harikant Mishra v. State of U.P. and others, 2008(4) ADJ 36 : 2008(2) ESC 1312 and Salahuddin v. State of U.P. and another, 2008(3) ADJ 705 . The aforesaid view has been followed by various Division Benches of this Court including Dr. Harikant Mishra v. State of U.P. and others, 2008(4) ADJ 36 : 2008(2) ESC 1312 and Salahuddin v. State of U.P. and another, 2008(3) ADJ 705 . In view of the above, since the person against whom the plea of mala fide has been levelled is not impleaded, I have no hesitation in declining the contention of the petitioner to assail the impugned order on the ground of mala fide. 117. Similarly allegations of mala fide have been levelled against Sri B.K. Bhalla, Additional Director General of Police, Radio Services. Except suggesting that under his instructions all the alleged irregularities were committed, no material to support the same has been placed on record. The allegations are also extremely vague and generalised. The allegations of mala fide being serious have to be pleaded with material particulars and specific details. In the absence thereof, merely because an officer is incharge of some work, it cannot be said that the entire action is on account of his mala fide. In the report also the committee has impleaded the said officer since he was incharge of the entire selection but it has also not given any material to find out the mala fide of Sri Bhalla in its report. In any case, the said report itself does not appear to have been accepted by the Government inasmuch as in all these cases counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Government has not supported the versions of the petitioners that there was any material illegality in the selection vitiating the same. Some of the candidates have gone to the extent of making allegation that the selection was made by Sri Bhalla, Additional Director General of Police, under the pressure of brother of the then Chief Minister but except making mere allegation nothing has been placed to substantiate the same. In fact in the said writ petition even the Minister concerned has not been impleaded eo nomine. In totality, I find that the allegation of mala fide are more in the nature of giving colour to the general allegation of irregularities/illegalities levelled by the petitioners and not with an objective to substantiate the same by giving details and material to support the same. Therefore, the same cannot be accepted and acted upon. 118. In totality, I find that the allegation of mala fide are more in the nature of giving colour to the general allegation of irregularities/illegalities levelled by the petitioners and not with an objective to substantiate the same by giving details and material to support the same. Therefore, the same cannot be accepted and acted upon. 118. The further ground that benefit of ex-service quota has not been provided is not substantiated in view of the specific stand of respondents that the reservation in accordance with the Rules had been adhered to but such candidates only to the extent they have qualified have been selected but if in a particular category, the candidates to the extent of reservation have not qualified, the vacancies have remained unfilled, therefore, the question of filling of those vacancies from the candidates lower in merit of a particular category does not arise. 119. The writ petitions wherein the relief has been sought for declaring the result of earlier selection and quashing the impugned one. Learned counsel for the petitioners could not show any right vested in them based on their participation in earlier selection which is not finalized and after cancelling the same the authorities have proceeded to hold the selection afresh in the manner but the candidates who have applied pursuant to earlier selection are treated to be candidates applied for subsequent one without any requirement of fresh application. 120. The learned counsel for the parties did not address any argument whatsoever to show that every year selection was mandatory and violation thereof would vitiate the entire selection. 121. In the Writ Petition No. 52250 of 2006 the complaint is that higher qualification of IIT etc. has not been given any preference. In the absence of any provision for giving preference, the presumption on the part of the petitioners and their request for special preference of higher qualification is untenable and has to be rejected. 122. Most of the writ petitioners submit that they have done well, yet they have not been selected. This cannot be a ground to vitiate the selection in the absence of any material to show that those who have been selected have performed poorly in comparison to those who have not been selected. No such material was placed before this Court to substantiate such allegations. 123. This cannot be a ground to vitiate the selection in the absence of any material to show that those who have been selected have performed poorly in comparison to those who have not been selected. No such material was placed before this Court to substantiate such allegations. 123. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the selection impugned in these writ petitions on the ground that there were mass irregularities vitiating the entire selection. However, this judgment will not preclude the respondents from taking action in accordance with law in respect to such individual candidate(s), if any, where there is material to show that his/her/their selection is erroneous or irregular. 124. In the result all the writ petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ————