JUDGMENT 1. The petitioners have approached this Court seeking a direction upon the respondents for appointment on Class IV post. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed taking a plea that, when various complaints of irregularities were received, a three man committee consisting of Additional Collector, Giridih, Deputy Development Commissioner, Giridih and Sub-divisional Officer, Giridih was constituted to enquire into the allegations of irregularities and the said committee reported substantial irregularities and thereafter, a decision was taken to cancel the entire selection process. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that though there may be certain irregularities in the selection process but the petitioners are deserving and bona-fide candidate, who competed and got selected on their own merit and therefore, merely because few irregularities were committed, the entire selection process cannot be annulled. The learned counsel further submits that no notice was ever issued to the petitioners before cancellation of the selection and the decision taken by the respondents is in violation of the principles of natural justice. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents reiterated the stand taken in the counter-affidavit and submitted that in cases of gross irregularities, the authorities had no other option but to cancel the entire selection process. 6. A perusal of the documents on record would indicate that the three man committee found gross irregularities in the selection process and therefore, I am of the view that in such a situation, show-cause notice is not required to be issued to the candidates. Though, there may be few deserving candidates who were selected on their own merits but in cases where gross irregularities are found, it has been held that cancellation of the entire selection would not be contrary to law. 7. In Union of India & other vs. O. Chakradhar, reported in (2002) 3 SCC 146 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “12. As per the report of CBI the whole selection smacks of mala-fides and arbitrariness. All norms are said to have been violated with impunity at each stage viz. right from the stage of entertaining applications, with answer-sheets while in the custody of chairman, in holding typing test, in interview and in the end while preparing the final result. As per the report of CBI the whole selection smacks of mala-fides and arbitrariness. All norms are said to have been violated with impunity at each stage viz. right from the stage of entertaining applications, with answer-sheets while in the custody of chairman, in holding typing test, in interview and in the end while preparing the final result. In such circumstances it may not be possible to pick out or choose a few persons in respect of whom alone the selection could be cancelled and their services in pursuance thereof could be terminated. The illegality and irregularity are so intermixed with the whole process of the selection that it becomes impossible to sort out the right from the wrong or vice versa. The result of such a selection cannot be relied or acted upon. It is not a case where a question of misconduct on the part of a candidate is to be gone into but a case where those who conducted the selection have rendered it wholly unacceptable. Guilt of those who have been selected is not the question under consideration but the question is, could such selection be acted upon in the matter of public employment? We are therefore of the view that it is not one of those cases where it may have been possible to issue any individual notice of misconduct to each selectee and seek his explanation in regard to the large-scale, widespread and all pervasive illegalities and irregularities committed by those who conducted the selection which may of course possibly be for the benefit of those who have been selected but there may be a few who may have deserved selection otherwise, but it is difficult to separate the cases of some of the candidates from the rest even if there may be some. The decision in the case of Krishan Yadav applies to the facts of the present case. The Railway Board's decision to cancel the selection cannot be faulted with. The appeal therefore deserves to be allowed. 13. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the orders passed by the Tribunal and the High Court are set aside and the order of termination of the services of the respondent is upheld.” 8. The Railway Board's decision to cancel the selection cannot be faulted with. The appeal therefore deserves to be allowed. 13. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the orders passed by the Tribunal and the High Court are set aside and the order of termination of the services of the respondent is upheld.” 8. In view of the aforesaid, I am not inclined to issue any direction to the respondents however, it is made clear that when the next selection process commences, appropriate relaxation of age should be given to the petitioners. 9. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid direction.