Judgment K.K.Lahoti,J. ( 1. ) This batch of petitions is arising out of a common order dated 15.12.2005 by the Additional Collector,Hoshangabad in Appeal N0.6-B/ 121 of 1998-99 and is being decided by this common order. ( 2. ) By the impugned order the Additional Collector,Hoshabgabad set aside the entire selection of Shiksha Karmis made by respondents. The order has been assailed by the petitioners mainly on following grounds :- (1) That all the petitioners who were selected through the process of selection were not made party before the Additional Collector, Hoshangabad. The Additional Collector,Hoshangabad without extending any opportunity of hearing set aside the selection and appointment in favour of petitioner. (2) That for the selection of Shiksha Karmi Grade I, II and III an advertisement was issued on 18.5.1998 for 25 posts for various subjects including Shiksha Karmi in Urdu subject. The last date of application was 17.7.1998. For Shiksha Karmi Grade I and II the interview was held on 19.8.1998 and for Shiksha Karmi III on 20.8.1998. On 5.9.1998 Shiksha Karmi Grade I and II were appointed and on 7.9.1998 Shiksha Karmi Grade III were appointed. Though two posts of Shiksha Karmi Grade I and one post of Shiksha Karmi Grade II remained vacant. After appointment, all the petitioners joined their respective posts. The respondents Manoj Kumar Singhwane,Ku.Nikita Mishra,Ku.Smita Mishra,Vivek Sharma,Shriram Kurmi and Devraj Mandlekar challenged the selection process and appointment of petitioners, but without impleading them. The matter remained pending before the Additional Collector,Hoshangabad for a considerable long period of nearabout7 years, but the respondents had not made any effort to implead or issuance of notices to the petitioners. In absence of extending an opportunity of hearing the selection and appointment of petitioners ought not to have been set aside. (3) Before the Additional Collector allegations were against 8 persons, 2 of Grade I, 2 of Grade II and 4 of Grade III. No allegations were made against others. When no allegations were made against other persons, the Additional Collector ought not to have set aside the entire selection and could have weeded out the persons against whom the allegations were made or proved. (4) In the alternative, it was submitted by Shri Rajendra Tiwari,learned Senior Advocate and Sarvashri Ashish Shroti,Rajnesh Gupta that in respect of persons against whom allegations were made and found, the matter may be remanded after extending an opportunity of hearing to them. (4) In the alternative, it was submitted by Shri Rajendra Tiwari,learned Senior Advocate and Sarvashri Ashish Shroti,Rajnesh Gupta that in respect of persons against whom allegations were made and found, the matter may be remanded after extending an opportunity of hearing to them. The petitioners have placed reliance to the Apex Court judgment in Prabodh Verma and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (AIR 1985 SC167),All India SC and ST Employees Association and another Vs. A.Arthur Jeen and others (AIR 2001 SC1851) Union of India and others Vs. Rajesh P.U., Puthuvalnikathu and another[(2003) 7SCC 285] in support of the contention that without impleading selected and appointed candidates their appointment ought not to have been set aside. (5) The petitioners also placed reliance to the various judgments of this Court in respect of same ratio. The Division Bench decision of this Court in W.A. No.1254/2008 Puneet Dixit and others Vs State of M.P. and others dated 4.2.2009, Union of India and others Vs. Vinod Kumar Dwivedi[2003(H) MPJR SN13],KuldeepShyam and others Vs. State of M.P. and others [2006(3) MPLJ154] and unreported judgment Nitendra Kumar Tiwari and others Vs. State of M.P. and others W.P.No.4692/2005 dated 11.3.2008,Ambesh Mishra and others Vs. State of M.P. and others W.P.No.9582/2005 dated 25.9.2006,Shyam Kishore Sharma and others Vs. State of M.P. and others decided on 13.9.2007. It was submitted by learned counsel that the impugned order may be quashed. 3.Sarvashri Samdarshi Tiwari,Arun Nema and Amit Dubey,learned counsel appearing for respondents supported the order. It was submitted by them that entire process of selection vitiates because of serious illegalities and the Additional Collector rightly set aside the entire selection, in which no interference is needed by this Court. It was submitted that the findings of Additional Collector are in respect of serious illegalities of non following of reservation roster, appointment of relations. It was submitted that on the aforesaid grounds no interference is needed in the impugned order. Reliance is placed to the Apex Court judgment Krishan Yadav and another Vs. State of Haryana and others[(1994) SCC165] and Union of India and others Vs. O.Chakradhar[(2002) 3 SCC146]. Referring aforesaid it was submitted by Shri Samdarshi Tiwari that no prejudice is caused to the petitioners because of non impleadment in the appeal before the Additional Collector. 4. To appreciate rival contention of the parties it would be appropriate if factual position in the case is stated. O.Chakradhar[(2002) 3 SCC146]. Referring aforesaid it was submitted by Shri Samdarshi Tiwari that no prejudice is caused to the petitioners because of non impleadment in the appeal before the Additional Collector. 4. To appreciate rival contention of the parties it would be appropriate if factual position in the case is stated. The respondent Municipal Council,SeoniMalwa issued an advertisement on 18.5.1998 for selection of appointment on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade I, II and III. The Advertised posts were as under :- 1. Grade I - 6 posts- 2. Grade II - 4 posts ( 3. ) Grade III - 15 posts The last date of submitting application was 17.7.1998. All the applicants were called for interview which was conducted on 19.8.1998 and on 20.8.1998. On 5.9.1998,4 persons were appointed as Shiksha Karmi Grade I and 3 persons were appointed as Shiksha Karmi Grade II. On 7.9.1995, 15 persons were appointed as Shiksha Karmi Grade III, thus total 22 persons were appointed as Shiksha Karmis. 2 posts in Grade I and 1 post in Grade II remained vacant due to non availability of suitable candidates. The aforesaid selection was challenged on 8.10.1998 in respect of the appointment of Shiksha Karmi Grade III dated 7.9.1998. Mainly allegations were made against Ms.Anjum Ara and Bahadur Singh who were appointed as Shiksha Karmi Grade III. The appeal was preferred by Manoj Kumar Singhwane,Ku.Nikita Mishra,Ku.Smita Mishra,Vivek Sharma,ShriramKurmi and DevrajMandlekar,who are respondent nos.5 to 10 herein. In the appeal the Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council,Seoni Malwa and selection committee were impleaded as respondents. No selected candidate was impleaded as party inspite of the fact that allegations were made against Ms.Anjum Ara and Bahadur Singh before the Additional Collector. The respondent nos.5 to 10 raised following issues :- (i) That the reservation roster was not followed. (ii) No receipt was issued to the candidate at the time of submitting their application. (iii) That the candidates who were more meritorious and were possessing more than.60% marks were not called in the interview, while the candidates possessing 50-55% marks were called for interview. (iv) That no reservation for handicapped persons was made. (v) That at the time of selection Block Education Officer and Lecturers were not included in the selection committee, but the persons of choice of respondents were the member of selection committee. (iv) That no reservation for handicapped persons was made. (v) That at the time of selection Block Education Officer and Lecturers were not included in the selection committee, but the persons of choice of respondents were the member of selection committee. (vi)The Shiksha Karmis who were possessing experience of more than 2 years were given only 1-2 marks out of 15, while the fresh candidates who were neither possessing adequate percentage of marks in the Board examination, nor were Shiksha Karmis even then were awarded 15 marks out of 15. (vii) That the Vice President of Municipality Zameel Khan selected his Bhanji(Sisters daughter Anjum Ara)who was not eligible. She was never a Shiksha Karmi,but inspite of this she was awarded 17 marks of bonus and was selected. (viii) That Anjum Ara furnished a forged certificate of experience. She had worked without any salary or honorarium and on the basis of such certificate she was awarded 17 bonus marks and 15 marks out of 15 in the interview. (ix) Another candidate Bahadur Singh, who was studying at Bhopal furnished forged certificate of experience. He was awarded 17 marks of bonus and selected, while he is relation of a member of selection committee. (x) That the selection committee selected some of. women candidates who were residing since last more than 10 years with their in-laws. These were close relations of members of Municipality, members of selection committee or the daughters of Councillors. (xi) That the selection committee had not issued receipt of the applications. They have not disclosed who were selected. Particulars of selection, their marks in examination, interview and bonus were not disclosed. (xii) That one candidate who was earlier tribe and changed his religion as Christian was selected in the reserved quota of tribals. On the aforesaid ground the entire selection and appointment dated 7.9.1998 was assailed. ( 4 ) The appeal was filed before the Collector Hoshabgabad,who transferred the appeal to the Additional Collector,Hoshangabad. The Additional Collector issued notice to the parties and sent for the record of Municipal Council, Seoni Malwa. On 8.1.1999 the applicants,Chief Municipal Officer. Seoni Malwa,the representatives of Deputy Director Shri Mangalsingh Raghuwanshi,B.P.Baghel.Incharge Principal,Smt.Rita Modi, Lecturer,Zameel Khan, Vice President Municipality,O.P.Rai, Councillor appeared. The Presiding Officer heard the arguments on 22.7.1999. As the relevant record was summoned by Chairman District Vigilance Committee,Bhopal(Lok Ayukt Sangathan),so the matter remained pending before the Additional Collector. On 8.1.1999 the applicants,Chief Municipal Officer. Seoni Malwa,the representatives of Deputy Director Shri Mangalsingh Raghuwanshi,B.P.Baghel.Incharge Principal,Smt.Rita Modi, Lecturer,Zameel Khan, Vice President Municipality,O.P.Rai, Councillor appeared. The Presiding Officer heard the arguments on 22.7.1999. As the relevant record was summoned by Chairman District Vigilance Committee,Bhopal(Lok Ayukt Sangathan),so the matter remained pending before the Additional Collector. Thereafter on 12.8.2005 record was received by the Additional Collector and both the parties were heard. The Additional Collector in the impugned order recorded following findings :- (a) That the Municipal Council,Seoni Malwa issued an advertisement on 18.5.1998 for the appointment of Shiksha Karmis Grade I, II and III. The aforesaid appointments were to be made as per the rules namely M.P.Municipality Shiksha Karmi (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1998. As per the advertisement vacancies were for Shiksha Karmi Grade 1= 6 posts,Shiksha Karmi Grade II = 4 posts and Shiksha Karmi Grade HI = 15 posts. The applications were invited upto 5.6.1998. For the selection the selection committee was constituted and on 19.8.1998 interviews were called for Shiksha Karmi Grade I, II and Urdu subject and 20.8.1998 for Grade III. The Additional Collector referred in para 6 of the order in respect of persons who were selected in the interview alongwith their marks. So far as Shiksha Karmi Grade I in subject History and Sanskrit and Shiksha Karmi Grade II in Arts remained vacant. As no application was received for these. (b)In para 7 of the judgment the Additional Collector considered the record and recorded following findings :- (i) That at the time of submitting application no receipt was issued to the applicants and this fact was brought into the notice of Project Officer District Urban Development Tribunal,Hoshangabad and this error was rectified, but none of the respondents or their Advocates could show any documents that the applicants were issued receipt of form. (ii) That the reservation was not followed while in this regard the State of M.P., School Education Department issued specific direction on 22.6.1998. In the selection process the President of Municipal Council,Seoni Malwa,SmtSema Mishra was Chairman who was not entitled to be the Chairman of the selection committee as she was chairman of Municipal Council. No directions were sought in this regard from the Higher Officials. (iii) In respect of selection of Shiksha Karmi Grade I Ku.Shrada Singhal the Additional Collector found that the allegations against her were not proved. No directions were sought in this regard from the Higher Officials. (iii) In respect of selection of Shiksha Karmi Grade I Ku.Shrada Singhal the Additional Collector found that the allegations against her were not proved. (iv) In respect of Bahadur Singh and Anjum Ara the Additional Collector, considered in para 7, later part of page 9, of the order that the certificate issued by Pradhan Pathak Government Girls Primary School Bhanpura the column of experience was lying vacant. She imparted teaching between 1.8.1997 and 28.2.1998 on her own will without any remuneration. (v) The Additional Collector considered the certificate issued in favour of applicant Ku.Smita Mishra,another applicant Shriram Kurmi and found that both the certificates were duly issued and forwarded by the authority. On the basis of these certificate Ku.Smita Mishra and Shriram Kurmi were awarded 17 marks each in the selection process, while Bahadur Singh and Anjum Ara were awarded 9 marks each. The Additional Collector found that Anjum Ara earned 57.55 marks and Ku.Smita earned 55.50 marks, Bahadur Singh earned 57.56 marks, while Shriram Kurmi earned 55.42 marks. On the basis of this Additional Collector found that the committee had not independently awarded the marks and infact their experience certificate were not seriously considered. (vi) In the select list of Grade HI overwriting, corrections were found by the Additional Collector. He found that in front of Ms.Geeta Dhurve,Jitendra Kapoor,Chandrashekhar Singhna earlier a dash was marked, but subsequently marks were given to them. On this correction nobody signed. Similarly in Grade III for Ms.Pushpadas earlier in column of experience was recorded as nil. No certificate was enclosed in respect of her experience alongwith application. Though photo copy of letter of one local private School dated 1.7.1992 was enclosed, but the selection committee had not awarded any marks to her. She achieved 31.89 marks and her selection was in the reservation quota of Scheduled Tribe women. In respect of Ms.Pushpadas contention of applicant was not accepted. (vii) The Additional Collector recorded a finding that in respect of selected candidates no waiting list was prepared and published, while directions were issued by the State Government in this regard. These instructions were well within the knowledge of Municpal Council. In respect of Ms.Pushpadas contention of applicant was not accepted. (vii) The Additional Collector recorded a finding that in respect of selected candidates no waiting list was prepared and published, while directions were issued by the State Government in this regard. These instructions were well within the knowledge of Municpal Council. (viii) One Manit Dubey who was selected as Shiksha Karmi Grade I in Economics, he was not Post Graduate in the subject, but he was appointed which creates doubt in respect of selection process. (ix) The Additional Collector found that as per the direction issued by the High Court in W.P.No.4792/1998 dated 16.10.1998 the selection process took place contrary to the rules and instructions of the Government. There were irregularities in the selection on the basis of aforesaid correction and overwriting. On the aforesaid ground, the Additional Collector found the entire selection process was doubtful, arbitrary and irregular. He found that the then Chief Municipal Officer,R.K.Pandey, was at fault and proceedings were directed to be initiated against him for non-compliance of rules and instructions of the Government. On the aforesaid grounds, the Additional Collector set aside the entire selection process and appointment of petitioners. ( 5. ) Now the contentions raised by the parties may be examined. The important question in the petition is whether the petitioners herein were necessary party to the appeal filed before the Additional Collector or respondent nos.3 and 4 who initiated selection process, selected the candidates and appointed them were duly representing the interest of applicants may be examined. ( 6. ) Shri Samdarshi Tiwari,learned Government Advocate in support of his contention that it was not necessary for the Additional Collector to extend an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners or without impleading them, if the appeal is decided then the order is just and proper. He placed reliance to the Apex Court judgment in Krishan Yadav and O.Chakradhar(supra). ( 7. ) Firstly the judgment cited by Shri Tiwari in Krishan Yadav may be seen. In the aforesaid case, the selection board selected Taxation Inspectors. The selection was challenged on the ground of fraud, nepotism, favoritism and arbitrariness. In the said selection process the appellants before the Apex Court though achieved excellent performance in the written test, but were not appointed. The Apex Court considering the serious allegations made in the petition referred the case to the CBI for investigation. The selection was challenged on the ground of fraud, nepotism, favoritism and arbitrariness. In the said selection process the appellants before the Apex Court though achieved excellent performance in the written test, but were not appointed. The Apex Court considering the serious allegations made in the petition referred the case to the CBI for investigation. The CBI investigated the matter and submitted its report before the Apex Court verifying the fact of favoritism, selection without interview as also on the basis of fake or ghost interviews, tampering with final records, fabrication of documents, forgery, keeping the selection list a secret, issuing appointment letters after calling selected candidates and obtaining joining reports from them on the spot. The CBI also reported that without any medical test and verification of antecedents by destroying the original records including the answer books, appointments were made. On the aforesaid ground the Apex Court found that the entire selection vitiated by fraud, nepotism, favoritism and arbitrariness and set it aside. The Apex Court further directed that fresh selection be made of the Taxation Inspectors. The Apex Court in para 20 of the judgment held thus :- "20. In the above circumstances, what are we to do? The only proper course open to us is to set aside the entire selection. The plea was made that innocent candidates should not be penalised for the misdeeds of others. We are unable to accept this argument. When the entire selection is stinking, conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit, individual innocence has no place as "fraud unravels everything". To put it in other words, the entire selection is arbitrary. It is that which is faulted and not the individual candidates. Accordingly we hereby set aside the selection of Taxation Inspectors." On the aforesaid ground the Apex Court set aside the appointment of 96 candidates including respondents. From the perusal of aforesaid, it is apparent that some of appointees were before the Apex Court, who were heard by the Apex Court. ( 8. ) But in this case position is entirely different. None of the candidates or appointees were before the Additional Collector to put forth the grievance or represent their case before the Additional Collector. So on facts, the case of Krishan Yadav is entirely different and is not applicable. ( 9. ) Another judgment which is relied on by Shri Samdarshi Tiwari is O.Chakradhar(supra). None of the candidates or appointees were before the Additional Collector to put forth the grievance or represent their case before the Additional Collector. So on facts, the case of Krishan Yadav is entirely different and is not applicable. ( 9. ) Another judgment which is relied on by Shri Samdarshi Tiwari is O.Chakradhar(supra). In the aforesaid judgment, the Apex Court considering the cancellation of select list on the ground of illegality and irregularity in conducting the selection held that individual notice to candidates was not necessary because the mischief in conducting the selection was so wide affecting the result that it was difficult to identify the persons unlawfully benefited or wrongfully deprived of selection. On these grounds the Apex Court cancelled the whole selection without issuing individual show-cause notice to each person selected. The Apex Court further held that the motive behind the irregularities was relevant. In the said case in the recruitment to the post of Junior Clerk-cum-Typist,the typewriting test which was essential requirement was not conducted. In the said case also a report of CBI in respect of serious nature of irregularity was directed. Thereafter the Railway Board took a decision cancelling entire panel and to terminate the service of all the candidates selected. But in this case the factual position is entirely different. The respondents nos.5 to 10 challenged the selection of only 2 persons namely Ms.Anjum Ara and Bahadur Singh on specific grounds. Though the Additional Collector recorded aforesaid finding, but without extending any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners herein. Now the judgments relied on by the petitioners may be seen. In Prabodh Verma(supra) the Apex Court in para 30 of the judgment held that the writ petition filed before the High Court was suffering from incredible defects namely nonjoinder of necessary party. Those who were vitally affected were not made party, not even -by joining some of them in their representative capacity because their number was too large. The Apex Court held that the High Court ought not to have decided a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, without the persons who would be vitally affected by the judgments before it. The Apex Court on the aforesaid ground set aside the judgment of High Court. ( 10. The Apex Court held that the High Court ought not to have decided a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, without the persons who would be vitally affected by the judgments before it. The Apex Court on the aforesaid ground set aside the judgment of High Court. ( 10. ) In A.Arthur Jeen(supra) the Apex Court held that the selected candidates who were seriously affected had every right to challenge the decision of Tribunal -on all grounds available to them. The Apex Court considering the question of candidates in the panel showing their provisional selection held that they do not get vested right to appointment, but they will be surely interested in protecting and defending the select list. None of such candidates was made party before the Tribunal. The Apex Court held that atleast some of them ought to have been impleaded to represent the case of successful candidates. The Apex Court reiterated the law laid down in Prabodh Verma(supra). ( 11. ) In Rajesh P. U. Puthuvalnikathu(supra) the Apex Court considering the fact that only in respect of the candidates against whom allegations were found proved by the CBI, others were entitled to be appointed and it would not be appropriate to take extreme decision of cancelling entire selection. In other judgments as cited of this Court by Division Bench and Single Bench, the same principle has been reiterated. ( 12. ) In this case it is not in dispute that none of the appointed person was impleaded as party before the Additional Collector. The appeal was filed long back on 8.10 1998 and remained pending for a considerable long period of 7 years before the Additional Collector. As stated hereinabove that nearabout22 candidates were selected and it was not a so large number of selection that individual candidates could not have been served. During the pendency of appeal before the AdditioaalCollector,no effort was made for serving these appointed persons or any of them to represent their case before the Collector. In absence of which the right of petitioners was affected seriously by not impleading them as party. When the petitioners were directly affected in the matter they ought to have been impleaded as party. In such circumstances, by non impleading petitioners, there was serious defect of non-joinder of necessary party. ( 13. In absence of which the right of petitioners was affected seriously by not impleading them as party. When the petitioners were directly affected in the matter they ought to have been impleaded as party. In such circumstances, by non impleading petitioners, there was serious defect of non-joinder of necessary party. ( 13. ) Apart from this, the respondents challenged the selection dated 7.9.1998 in respect of Shiksha Karmi Grade III by which 15 persons were appointed. So far as Shiksha Karmi Grade I and II, these were appointed on 5.9.1998. In the appeal filed by respondents nos.5 to 10 no allegations were made in respect of Shiksha Karmi Grade I and II. The respondents nos.5 to 10 raised allegations against Ms. Anjum Ara and Bahadur Singh, who were selected in Grade III. The Additional Collector while considering the case found that during the course of arguments allegations were made in respect of 8 persons. Out of Grade I candidates, allegations were made against Ku.Shradha Singhal and Manit Dubey From Grade II allegations were made against Ms.Geeta Dhurve,Jitendra Kapoor. From Grade III allegations were made against Ms. Anjum Ara,Bahadur Singh,Chandrashekhar Singhna and Ms.Pushpadas. So the appointment of these 8 persons was assailed before the Additional Collector. Even during the arguments before him out of total selected 22 candidates allegations were made only in respect of8 persons. So far as Ms.Shrada Singhal is concerned, Additional Collector in para 7 on page 9 found that allegations against her were not acceptable. Similarly in respect of Ms.Pushpadas,Additional Collector has not found any allegations proved. In respect of others though findings have been recorded against them, but without extending any opportunity of hearing. When no allegations were made against others, setting aside the entire selection process has caused serious injustice to those persons who were not extended even an opportunity of hearing before the Additional Collector. Principles of natural justice requires that such an opportunity of hearing should be extended until and unless it is found that no such opportunity was necessary. ( 14. Principles of natural justice requires that such an opportunity of hearing should be extended until and unless it is found that no such opportunity was necessary. ( 14. ) In respect of other allegations that no receipt was issued to the candidates, reservation was not followed, certificates produced by some of the candidates were not duly verified or there was some correction in the select list, in this regard a thorough enquiry ought to have been made by the Additional Collector, that too after extending an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. He also ought to have verified the award of marks to these persons on the basis of material produced by these persons in the selection process, but it appears that all these issues have escaped from the notice of the Additional Collector. ( 15. ) The Additional Collector ought to have considered a fact that whether selection of other persons against whom no allegations were made could have been sustained under the law. If no allegations were made against others and their selection was not challenged directly or indirectly, the entire selection ought not to have been cancelled by the Collector. ( 16. ) In W.P.No.5753/2006(S)(R.K.Pandey Vs. State of M.P. and others),the petitioner R.K.Pandey,who was the Chief Municipal Officer at Seoni Malwa has assailed the order of Additional Collector, Hoshangabad,by which it is directed to initiate disciplinary proceedings against him. As the order dated 15.12.2005 itself has been quashed, so it is not necessary to pass a separate order in this regard. However if the respondents in future require to initiate any proceedings against him they shall follow the procedure of law and can take action against him in this regard. The order so far as it relates directing disciplinary proceedings against this petitioner, at present is also quashed. In view of aforesaid, the order passed by the Additional Collector Annexure P-3 is not sustainable under the law and is hereby quashed. These petitions are allowed, with no order as to costs. Petition allowed.