JUDGMENT By the Court.—We have heard Additional Advocate General, Mr. Jafar Nayar for the State-respondents and Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Sahab Tewari and Sri Yogesh Srivastava for the respondents on the Delay Condonation Applications filed alongwith the appeals. 2. Cause shown for the delay is sufficient Therefore, we condone the delay in filing the aforesaid appeals and, upon the consent of the parties, proceed to hear the same. 3. Since the aforementioned special appeals have arisen from the same judgment and order dated 10.6.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in CM WP No. 60625 of 2008 (Mulayam Singh v. State of U.P. and others) connected with several other connected writ petitions, involving similar matters, allowing the writ petitions, we are deciding all the appeals by this common judgment and order. 4. The State Government has challenged the aforesaid order of the learned Single Judge in all the appeals before us. 5. The facts, in brief, leading to the filing of the writ petitions and also these special appeals are as under: More than one lakh (to be exact 1,08,848) posts of safai karmcharis (sweepers) were created in the Panchayati Raj institutions on temporary basis, which were spread to a large number of districts of the State. These posts were meant for maintaining cleanliness in the rural areas. Order in this regard was passed by the Government on 6.6.2008. Advertisements were made in the newspapers and due selection process followed. As a result of the selection process, 828 posts of sweepers were allotted to the district of Firozabad; a select list was prepared and was also published; and, subsequently, on 27.9.2008, letters of appointments were issued to the selected candidates. On 28/29.9.2008, 777 candidates have joined their posts on the strength of the appointment letters issued by the competent authorities. 6. Be that as it may, some complaints appear to have been made by a couple of legislators, alleging that about 38 candidates were illegally appointed and that there were a good number of candidates from the same families and the same village. It is to be noticed at this juncture that these are two main complaints, and nothing more. It has to be further noticed that no particulars of any of these 38 candidates, has been made reference of in the complaints. 7. It is to be noticed at this juncture that these are two main complaints, and nothing more. It has to be further noticed that no particulars of any of these 38 candidates, has been made reference of in the complaints. 7. Initially, an enquiry was held and the enquiry report submitted on 3.10.2008. This enquiry was conducted by the District Panchayat Raj Officer and the City Magistrate at the behest of the District Magistrate, Firozabad. In the enquiry report, it has been categorically reported that no irregularity was ever committed and, therefore, a clean chit had been given to the entire selection process. The said enquiry report was tabled before the superior officers as well as the Government. Unfortunately, that was not seriously taken note of. 8. However, as already pointed out, the letters of appointment were given to the selectees, as many as 777 in number, who were recruited after undergoing the process prescribed under Group ‘D’ Recruitment Rules, 1985 (in short, the 1985 Rules). 9. Subsequently, taking into account the complaints levelled by the legislators regarding the alleged involvement of malpractices by 38 candidates, again an (second) enquiry was conducted on 6.10.2008 by the Chief Development Officer, Agra, in which it was reported in a different way that 38 candidates were involved in the irregularities. However, so far as the rest of the candidates were concerned, the enquiry report stated that there were no irregularities. As such, the selection process, obviously, had been followed as per the 1985 Rules. 10. It further appears that as a result of the 6.10.2008 enquiry report, reporting that 38 individuals were involved in the malpractices during the selection process, the whole selection process, involving all the candidates in Firozabad district, was cancelled vide order dated 14.11.2008 by the Government. 11. This order of the State-appellant dated 14.11.2008 was challenged before the learned single Judge. Learned single Judge agreed with the selectees, and allowed the writ petitions. Hence the present special appeals by the State Government. 12. In the aforesaid background, what is to be first notices is that there is no controversy as regards the notification of a number of posts in the district of Firozabad, the constitution of the selection committees constituted, and the entire selection process and that the select list was prepared in accordance with the 1985 Rules. 12. In the aforesaid background, what is to be first notices is that there is no controversy as regards the notification of a number of posts in the district of Firozabad, the constitution of the selection committees constituted, and the entire selection process and that the select list was prepared in accordance with the 1985 Rules. Subsequent to such selections, orders of appointments to 777 candidates were given by the competent authorities as long back as on 27.9.2008 and 28/29.9.2008. Those candidates have joined their duties. However, they have not been assigned any work so far, which, however, matters little for the purpose of the present controversy. 13. The next important thing to be noticed is that the earliest enquiry that was conducted before the letters of appointments were issued to the 777 candidates was held on 3.10.2008 and the report thereof was in favour of the correctness and validity of the selection process which was held to be in order. But, for the reasons best known to the appellant, no significance has been attached to the said report, nor any reasons have been assigned for discarding the same. 14. Importantly, the aforesaid second enquiry, held on 6.10.2008, was conducted only within 3 days i.e. on 6.10.2008, of the first enquiry, by the Chief Development Officer, Agra. The said enquiry was conducted, as already noticed, in the light of the complaints made by two legislators in relation to the alleged irregularities in the selection process in so far as 38 candidates are concerned. It is to be further noticed from this report that the no authority had ever recorded his finding that the complaints against the Project Officer and the District Panchayat Raj Officer, as there were certain allegations against them, could be substantiated by any evidence, oral or documentary. In the report, the finding of the irregularity or illegality, if any, was confined only to the limited number of 38 candidates. 15. It is to be seen further that the third enquiry was conducted on 2.3.2009 by a committee consisting of the Assistant Employment Officer and Additional Commissioner, Agra and the Chief Development Officer, Agra. Even the report of the said committee also was with regard to the alleged involvement of 38 candidates only, and nothing more. This report was also conclusive one. 16. Yet another (fourth) enquiry was conducted and the report thereof was submitted on 15.7.2010. Even the report of the said committee also was with regard to the alleged involvement of 38 candidates only, and nothing more. This report was also conclusive one. 16. Yet another (fourth) enquiry was conducted and the report thereof was submitted on 15.7.2010. That report also relates to 38 candidates only. It appears that one candidate did not appear in the examination. 17. From the above, apparently, from all the four enquiries, conducted one after another, what is borne out is that all these enquiries were conducted subsequent not only to the selection of all the candidates and the letters of appointments being issued to the candidates, but also, only after they have joined their services. 18. It has to be remembered here that once they were recruited and they joined their services, cessation of their services should and could be governed by the 1985 Rules, inasmuch as their appointments were made under these Rules, and not otherwise. 19. Therefore, any enquiry, if conducted subsequent to their appointments and joinings, should and could have been only under the 1985 Rules after following the procedure prescribed thereunder. 20. However, no reference has been made by the authorities whether any such procedure prescribed under the 1985 Rules had ever been followed or adhered to before initiating any of the above enquiries. 21. Furthermore, if really any such enquiry was conducted by, as contemplated under the 1985 Rules, we are of the considered opinion that there is no need for the competent authority or the Government to initiate enquiry after enquiry under the Rules. We are afraid that no such procedure could be prescribed under any service rules. It is rather unknown to service jurisprudence. 22. It is further to be seen that any of those enquiries, except the first one, i.e. conducted on 3.10.2008, the selection of only of 38 candidates was faulted on the ground that many of them either belonged to the same village or the same families etc. 23. It is to be further noticed that from the reports of these enquiries, those 38 candidates (already employed as on the date of the enquiries) were not allowed to participate, which is evident from the averments made in the various affidavits. If any such participation of those candidates was allowed, it would have been mentioned in the affidavits filed by the contesting parties, particularly that of the appellants. If any such participation of those candidates was allowed, it would have been mentioned in the affidavits filed by the contesting parties, particularly that of the appellants. Therefore, we are compelled to draw an inference that all the enquiries, particularly the last three, were conducted only with regard to 38 candidates repeatedly, for no plausible reasons and without the participation of any of the candidates whose services were at peril. 24. Even assuming that there was some flaw in the selection process, in so far as those 38 candidates are concerned, we are of the considered view that there was absolutely no discernible reason nor any justification to cancel the entire selection process of 828 candidates (safai karamcharis) of the district of Firozabad. To put it in a different way, due to mistakes committed by only a minuscule number of selectees, the selection of hundreds of selectees, who eventually had got the employment under the Government, was unjustifiably rescinded. In this regard, the learned single Judge has taken into consideration and relied upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Indra Preet Singh’s case, reported in 2006 (11) SCC 356 , wherein it was held by the Apex Court that innocent persons, who were properly and regularly selected and recruited, should not suffer as a result of mass cancellation of the appointments. The learned single Judge further pointed out that in the interest of all the concerned, particularly, in the interest of the honest candidates, the Government should have found out and the tainted candidates from the rest, and left the appointments of the untainted and honest candidates undisturbed. We are in complete agreement with the aforesaid observations made by the single Judge fortified by the observations of the Apex Court in the afore-quoted case. 25. To put it in a different way, only a small number of 38 candidates were allegedly involved in the alleged malpractices for the purpose of getting selections; however, the selections of more than 777 candidates who have already got the employment and joined their posts, were cancelled, after about two-and-a half years, particularly in the context of all the three enquiries, and all the enquiry reports unanimously took the view that the irregularities alleged were only relating to 38 candidates, and nothing more. We find from the record supplied by the appellants that 38 candidates who were allegedly involved in the malpractices in order to secure their employment, were identified. We are of the firm view that for the irregularity conducted by the small group of 38 candidates only, the entire selection precess affecting the services of more than 777 Government servants could not have been affected and the same is only irrational and arbitrary. 26. We also cannot ignore the right of the appointing authority or the competent authority or the Government to initiate any enquiry as permitted under the service rules applicable to the respondents (employees), that is, the 1985 Rules, since they are already employees of the Government under the said Rules. In other words, any such enquiry, if to be conducted against those persons against whom a case of irregularity or illegality is made out by different enquiry officers, a detailed departmental enquiry may have to be conducted only in accordance with the UP Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 or any other law that is applicable. 27. For the aforesaid reasons and observations, all the appeals fail and the judgment dated 10.6.2009 of the learned single Judge impugned is confirmed. 28. Needless to mention that all the consequences pursuant to the orders of the learned single Judge shall follow. —————