Judgment Dream has come true for India. 'Mangalyan' has successfully entered the Mars Orbit, today. The Nation congratulates ISRO. This reaffirms that self-confidence and tireless efforts, with untainted motive, are the foundation for any success. Be it science, art, technology, economics, law, etc., to unearth the truth is the mission of every field. We, as a Nation, have made remarkable achievements in every field post-independence. The Indian judiciary, in particular, which is considered to be one of the strongest institutions globally, has, in the past, left no stone un-turned to unearth the truth. In the instant case, though, it, at its first blush, looks to be a small issue, for the poor man, who is before this Court as a litigant, it is life. So, this Court needs to make every endeavour to unearth the truth. 2. Quality of governance is essentially depending on the quality of the public servants, we have. Influencing the action of officials or getting influenced in the discharge of their official duty itself, besides being unethical, amounts to corruption. The makers of our Constitution, the great visionaries, aimed at providing equality of opportunity in public employment. Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees equality before law and equal protection of laws, is an arch enemy of arbitrariness. Article 16 of the Constitution guarantees equal opportunity in public employment. 3. The poor youths of this Country aim at small employment like Office Assistant, Sweeper, Watchman, Gardener, etc. These posts have been classified as Basic Service. When these unemployed youths pin their hope on the equality guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, it is, at times, thwarted by hatred elements like nepotism, favouritism, corruption, undue influence, etc. In the instant case, the petitioner knocks at the doors of this Court seeking justice, alleging the above. He challenges his non-selection for the post of Watchman in Government Service. 4. In the instant case, the petitioner knocks at the doors of this Court seeking justice, alleging the above. He challenges his non-selection for the post of Watchman in Government Service. 4. The Government of Tamil Nadu, with a laudable object of providing security for the Schools in the State and their properties and to keep them clean, issued G.O.Ms.No.47, School Education (R1) Department, dated 02.03.2012, in pursuance of the announcement made by the Hon'ble Chief Minister on the floor of the Assembly, on 26.08.2011, sanctioning as many as 5000 non-teaching posts in the cadre of watchmen and sanitary workers, in Government High and Higher Secondary Schools, by surrendering 5014 non-teaching posts, lying vacant for a long time. The Government also issued a letter under D.O.No.40482/R1/2011, dated 05.03.2012, issuing instructions to the authorities as to how to fill-up these vacancies. 5. So far as Usilampatti Educational District is concerned, 13 posts in the cadre of watchman and 25 posts in the cadre of sanitary worker were sanctioned. Accordingly, as per the instructions given by the Government, names of eligible candidates were called for by the District Educational Officer, Usilampatti, the 5th respondent herein, from Employment Exchange. The name of the petitioner was duly sponsored. As a matter of fact, for the post of watchmen, 47 names were sponsored and for the post of sweepers, 116 names were sponsored by the Employment Exchange. In the interview held on 14.06.2012, out of 47 persons, for whom call letters were sent for the post of watchmen, 13 persons participated and out 116 persons, for whom call letters were sent for the post of sweepers, 65 persons attended the interview. Finally, the 5th respondent appointed eight persons as watchmen, who are respondents 6 to 13, the petitioner was not, however, selected. 6. Thereafter, the petitioner made an application under the Right to Information Act on 02.11.2012, seeking certain information regarding the above selection. For the same, information was duly furnished by the Public Information Officer, which includes the tabulated statement of the proceedings of the interview and the final selection made. From that, the petitioner came to know that the respondents 7, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 were selected on the basis of the recommendations of politicians such a Hon'ble Minister of the Government of Tamil Nadu, Members of Legislative Assembly and the District Secretary of a political party. From that, the petitioner came to know that the respondents 7, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 were selected on the basis of the recommendations of politicians such a Hon'ble Minister of the Government of Tamil Nadu, Members of Legislative Assembly and the District Secretary of a political party. From the said information furnished, the petitioner claims that the selection was not based on merit and the same was influenced by the above recommendation letters. Thus, according to the petitioner, the selection is not in accordance with law and the same suffers from nepotism, favouritism, corruption, etc. With these allegations, the petitioner has challenged the selection of the above respondents 7 and 9 to 13, based on the information furnished. That is how, this writ petition is before this Court for disposal. 7. This writ petition was filed on 21.08.2013. Originally, this matter came up for hearing before the Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.MANIKUMAR on 26.08.2013. The learned Government Advocate took notice for the official respondents. Having noticed the information furnished under the Right to Information Act, which reflected that appointment of respondents 7 and 9 to 13 were made only on the recommendations of politicians, the Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.MANIKUMAR directed the District Educational Officers, Usilampatti and Madurai, to produce the original records. 8. When the matter was taken-up for hearing on 29.08.2013, the original records from the office of the District Educational Officers, Madurai and Usilampatti, were produced. (I do not wish to make any reference about the selection by the District Educational Officer, Madurai, because it is outside the scope of this writ petition. I venture to discuss only about the selection made, that too for the posts of watchman alone in Usilampatti Educational District.). The Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.MANIKUMAR had the benefit of perusing the entire records produced by the District Educational Officers on that date. I venture to discuss only about the selection made, that too for the posts of watchman alone in Usilampatti Educational District.). The Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.MANIKUMAR had the benefit of perusing the entire records produced by the District Educational Officers on that date. This Court noticed, on that day, that there was a record to show that a phone message from the Director of School Education, dated 26.07.2012, received at 4.35 p.m. It reads as follows: “Instruction to DEO regarding the watchman and Sweeper Post: a) Show the final list to the concerned ruling party MLA b) Recommendation letter from the MLA in his letter pad c) The final list cannot be changed (no addition, no deletion) d) if there is no ruling party MLA letter from Secretary's letter pad (sic) e) Otherwise District Minister's recommendation letter.” Further record, which is in Tamil, reads as follows: “Tamil” Sd./- 26.07.2012” (which means, ”after collecting the recommendation letters, as stated above, submit the same to the J.D.(P) before 29.07.2012. Sd/- 26.07.2012”) 9. On the back of the above said page No.154, there were certain telephone numbers noted down. This Court (Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.MANIKUMAR) further noticed that there was further communication from the Directorate of School Education, Chennai, in R.C.No.100729/A5/E1/2011, dated 23.08.2012, which is addressed to 35 District Educational Officers in the State. This is in the form of show cause notice for not submitting the details of the selected candidates as per 200 point roster before 21.08.2012. The said letter was received by the 5th respondent as well. In response to the above, the District Educational Officer, Usilampatti, has furnished a reply on 24.08.2012, wherein he has sent the details in the format. The learned Judge has further recorded that the file further disclosed that mail had been sent by the Joint Director (Personnel), School Education Department, to the District Educational Officers on 6th September, 2012 at 6.05 p.m. The said message reads as follows: “Chief Ministers announcement – 5000 watchman and sweeper posts – the dealing Assistant or Superintendent of DEO's instructed to attend the meeting in DSE office on 07.09.2012 at 10.00 a.m. without fail.” However, it was contended by the learned Government Advocate, on instructions, that the selection and appointments were made only based on merit. It was also informed to the Court that the phone message, which has been recorded on 26.07.2012, was in the hand-writing of one Mr.Mayan, Section Clerk, attached to the Office of the District Educational Officer, Usilampatti. In those circumstances, this Court in paragraph 32 of the order, recorded as follows: “Prima facie entire selection process appears to have been made on recommendation of the ruling party politicians and partly on the basis of merit. Hence, the Director of School Education, Chennai and the Joint Director of School Education (Personnel), Chennai, to whom the first respondent herein, to whom the recommendation letters of the politicians are stated to have been sent, one week before the finalisation of the selection list, are directed to produced all the files, pertaining to the selection of all the candidates to the post of sweepers and watchmen in the educational districts in the State of Tamil Nadu, along with recommendation letters stated to have been given by various politicians, as indicated by him in the phone message stated supra and recorded in the files produced, before this Court forthwith.” This Court further recorded that Mr.Ravikumar, District Educational Officer, Usilampatti, had confirmed that it is the signature of Mr.Mayan, found on the notings on 26.07.2012 and the signature in the proceedings, dated 06.03.2013, is that of his P.A. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned to 30.08.2013 for the production of files. 10. On 30.08.2013, when the matter came-up for hearing before this Court, this Court from the files recorded that one Mr.J.Santhamoorthy, District Educational Officer, Usilampatti, Mr.A.Vishnudoss, Head Master, Government Higher Secondary School, Gopinaickenpatti, Mr.K.Dharmar, Head Master, Government Higher Secondary School, Veeraperumalpuram, Mrs.P.Vasantha, Superintendent, District Educational Office, Usilampatti and Mr.A.Mayan, Superintendent (MS), District Educational Office, Usilampatti, were all in-charge of the selection process. This Court further directed that Mr.Devarajan, the then Joint Director of School Education (Personnel) and the present Director of School Education, namely Mr.Kannappan, should be present before this Court on 03.09.2013 at 10.30 a.m., along with relevant files. 11. On 03.09.2013, due to change in the roster, the matter came-up before me, for hearing. Mr.Devarajan, the Director of Government Examination, was present before this Court. He was the previous Director of School Education during the relevant time of the selection in question. 11. On 03.09.2013, due to change in the roster, the matter came-up before me, for hearing. Mr.Devarajan, the Director of Government Examination, was present before this Court. He was the previous Director of School Education during the relevant time of the selection in question. He submitted that he did not give any such instruction to the District Educational Office, Usilampatty, over phone, to make appointment based on the recommendation letters given by M.L.As., Minister and Secretary of the ruling party. He further submitted that no such telephone message was given at his instance on 26.07.2012 at 4.35 p.m. The said statement was recorded. Mr.Ravikumar, the District Educational Officer, Usilampatti, was also present before the Court. He submitted that the information under RTI Act was given only by him. He also admitted his signature and the seal appended to the same. According to him, the enclosure appended to the information was prepared and signed by one Mr.J.Shanthamoorthi, the then District Educational Officer, Usilampatti. He further submitted that he made his signature only in the covering letter, in response to the query under the RTI Act. Mr.J.Shanthamoorthi, had already retired from service. However, this Court wanted to enquire Mr.Shanthamoorthi about the above selection process so as to know whether the selection was made on merit or based on recommendation letters. Mr.Mayan, the Desk Superintendent in the office District Educational Office, Usilampatti, at the relevant time, was also present before this Court. He admitted before this Court that page No.154 of the file is in his handwriting and the same was made only by him. He also admitted the signature found therein. He further stated that the phone message recorded at page No.154 was received by him on 26.07.2012. But, he was not in a position to say as to who actually spoke over phone from the Directorate of School Education giving the above message. The said statement was also recorded. 12. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the official respondents submitted on that date that though it is true that there are some notings in the original records as though recommendations letters were produced by some candidates from M.L.As., District Secretary of a particular political party and minister, the entries may or may not be true. 12. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the official respondents submitted on that date that though it is true that there are some notings in the original records as though recommendations letters were produced by some candidates from M.L.As., District Secretary of a particular political party and minister, the entries may or may not be true. The learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that he had to get further instruction from the officers concerned as to whether any recommendation letters were received from politicians and if so what had happened to those letters. 13. Having heard the said submissions of the learned Additional Advocate General, this Court further recorded that the former Director of School Education, who was present, had not produced any recommendation letters. Mr.Kannappan, the Joint Director, who was present in Court, submitted that he had joined very recently as Joint Director of School Education and therefore he could say nothing about the same. But, he submitted that the files maintained in his office did not contain those letters. This submission was also recorded. The learned Additional Advocate General took time to get further instructions to make further submissions. Therefore, the matter was adjourned to 06.09.2013. On 06.09.2013, when this matter was taken-up, Mr.Devarajan, the former Director of School Education, was present before this Court. He submitted that he took charge as Director of School Education on 06.08.2012 and thus on the crucial date i.e. 26.07.2012, he was not the Director. The Joint Director Mr.Kannappan was also present before this Court and he submitted that he took charge as Joint Director only on 17.09.2012 and thus he was also not there during the crucial date, namely 26.07.2012. The Joint Director, however, produced the file maintained in the office of the Director in connection with selection of candidates for the post of Sweepers and watchmen. A perusal of the files revealed nothing incriminating. Therefore, the files were returned and the presence of these two officers was also dispensed with. It was then submitted to this Court that Mr.Mani was the Director of School Education on 26.07.2012 and Mrs.Rajarajeswari was the Joint Director of School Education during the relevant time. It was disclosed to this Court by Mr.Devarajan that the file relating to the District Educational Officer, Madurai, was returned as this writ petition does not cover the selection made by the District Educational Office, Madurai. 14. It was disclosed to this Court by Mr.Devarajan that the file relating to the District Educational Officer, Madurai, was returned as this writ petition does not cover the selection made by the District Educational Office, Madurai. 14. On that date, the learned Additional Advocate General, on instructions, submitted that the Government was very much concerned with the alleged irregularities pointed out in this case in the matter of selection of candidates for the post of Sweepers. He further submitted that the Government would probe into the matter, fix up the responsibilities and initiate action against the persons responsible for the irregularities, if any, in this matter. In respect of the selection of respondents 6 to 13 and also non-selection of the petitioner, the learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the respondents would file necessary counter. When the learned Additional Advocate General was requested to go on record as to who should probe into the matter, he submitted that the Court itself may appoint any person to probe into the matter or else, the Government would appoint an officer to probe into the matter and report to this Court on 11.09.2013. The learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that the enquiry officer would be in the rank of an officer of Indian Administrative Service. The said statement was recorded. The matter was therefore adjourned to 11.09.2013, to know the further stand of the Government. 15. When the matter again came up for hearing on 17.09.2013, the learned Additional Advocate General submitted that one Mr.C.V.Sankar, I.A.S., Principal Secretary to Government, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, would be appointed by the Government as Enquiry Officer to hold a detailed enquiry into the whole episode urged before this Court earlier and recorded in the interim orders and also the allegations made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. More specifically, the learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the enquiry would be directed to find out whether any instruction at all was given by the Director of School Education or anybody from the office of the Director of School Education to the District Educational Officer, Usilampatti, to make appointments on the basis of recommendation letters from the politicians. More specifically, the learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the enquiry would be directed to find out whether any instruction at all was given by the Director of School Education or anybody from the office of the Director of School Education to the District Educational Officer, Usilampatti, to make appointments on the basis of recommendation letters from the politicians. The learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that the enquiry would also be directed to find out any such recommendation letters were give by any politician, including MLAs and Ministers and if so, what had happened to those letters as they were not found either in the file of the District Educational Officer's Office at Usilampatti or in the office of the Director of School Education. The learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that the enquiry would also be directed to find out as to whether appointments were made based on merit or based on the recommendation letters allegedly given by the politicians. The learned Additional Advocate General submitted that in respect of the alleged tampering of the original records also, the enquiry officer would hold necessary enquiry. The learned Additional Advocate General also submitted that after completion of the enquiry, necessary counter affidavit would filed along with the report of the enquiry officer, for which the learned Additional Advocate General sought for reasonable time. 16. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, however, stoutly opposed the said move to appoint an enquiry officer at the option of the Government. The learned counsel further submitted that any third party may be appointed as Enquiry Officer and not an officer of the Government. This Court was not, however, persuaded by the said plea made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. When the Government itself had come forward to appoint an enquiry officer of a higher rank to hold a detailed enquiry into the episode, this court felt that it was appropriate for this Court to permit the Government to do so. This Court expressed its hope that the Enquiry Officer would hold the enquiry objectively to unearth the truth and submit a report. This Court felt that four weeks time would be more than sufficient to hold enquiry and to submit a report. This Court expressed its hope that the Enquiry Officer would hold the enquiry objectively to unearth the truth and submit a report. This Court felt that four weeks time would be more than sufficient to hold enquiry and to submit a report. Accordingly, this Court accepted the submission of the learned Additional Advocate General to appoint Mr.C.V.Sankar as the Enquiry Officer and this Court therefore directed the Enquiry Officer Mr.C.V.Sankar to hold enquiry and submit a report to this Court within four weeks. The matter was ordered to be listed on 22.10.2013. That is how Mr.C.V.Sankar I.A.S., the present Principal Secretary to Government, Industries Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, came in the picture. 17. The original files from the office of the District Educational Officer, Usilampatti, which were produced before this Court, were ordered to be kept in a sealed cover. After the appointment of the Enquiry Officer, respondents 1 to 5 filed M.P.(MD)No.7 of 2013 seeking return of the original files to enable the Enquiry Officer to hold enquiry. Having accepted the said plea, this Court issued the following direction to the Registry. "3. Having regard to the above submissions made, the Registry is directed as follows: (i) The Registrar (Judicial) shall return the original records pertaining to the appointment of Watchman an Sweepers etc., which were produced earlier by the District Educational Officer, Usilampatti, to Mr.Malaiarasan, Joint Secretary to Government, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, after adhering to the following conditions:- (ii) The Joint Secretary Mr.Malaiarasan, shall appear before the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court and the Registrar (Judicial) shall, in his presence, take xerox copies of the entire files and keep the same in a sealed cover, after the same is attested by both the Registrar (Judicial) and the Joint Secretary, Mr.M.Malaiarasan. (iii) Thereafter, the Registrar (Judicial) shall hand over the original files to the Joint Secretary, Mr.M.Malairasan, who shall in turn, after verifying the entire files, keep the same in a cover, which shall be sealed jointly by the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court and the Joint Secretary. The sealed cover containing the files shall thereafter be handed over by the Joint Secretary, Mr.M.Malaiarasan to the Principal Secretary, namely, Mr.P.V.Shankar. (iv) It is further directed that the original files shall be produced again to this Court along with the report of the Enquiry Officer, Mr.P.V.Shankar." 18. The sealed cover containing the files shall thereafter be handed over by the Joint Secretary, Mr.M.Malaiarasan to the Principal Secretary, namely, Mr.P.V.Shankar. (iv) It is further directed that the original files shall be produced again to this Court along with the report of the Enquiry Officer, Mr.P.V.Shankar." 18. Thereafter, it appears that Mr.C.V.Sankar held enquiry, but he could not complete the same within the time frame. At his request, the time was also extended. Thereafter, on completing the enquiry Mr.C.V.Sankar, I.A.S., was ready to submit the report under Letter No.1/Prl Secretary, Industries/2014, dated 16.06.2014. The Registry listed the case before Hon'ble Mr.Justice K.K.Sasidharan, as per the roster arrangement. On 26.08.2014, when the matter came up before Mr.Justice K.K.Sasidharan, the learned Judge, recorded as follows: "The learned Additional Advocate General would submit that the respondents have conducted an enquiry and he is in possession of the report. 2. This Court passed an order dated 06.09.2013, directing the respondents to conduct an enquiry in the matter through a Senior Indian Administrative Officer. Accordingly, enquiry was conducted the report is now ready. It would be in the interest of both parties to post the matter before the learned Judge, who herd this matter earlier at length and passed the order dated 06.09.2013. 3. The Registry is directed to place the matter before the Hon'ble Administrative Judge for the purpose of passing appropriate orders for posting the writ petition before the learned Judge (SNJ)". 19. As directed by the Hon'ble Mr.K.K.SASIDHARAN, an Office Note was put-up before the learned Administrative Judge and on the orders of the learned Administrative Judge, this matter was listed before me on 15.09.2014. On that date, the Report of the Enquiry Officer Mr.C.V.Sankar, I.A.S., was filed in a sealed cover by the learned Additional Advocate General. The same was opened in his presence, in the open Court, which contained the report and few documents, including the 16 recommendation letters of some politicians. The learned Additional Advocate General requested for time to go through the report and to make his further submissions. This Court directed the Registry to furnish copies of the report and the documents filed therein to the learned Additional Advocate General as well as to the learned counsel for the petitioner, under acknowledgment. This Court further directed the registry to keep the above records in a sealed cover, after taking required number of xerox copies. This Court directed the Registry to furnish copies of the report and the documents filed therein to the learned Additional Advocate General as well as to the learned counsel for the petitioner, under acknowledgment. This Court further directed the registry to keep the above records in a sealed cover, after taking required number of xerox copies. The matter was directed to be listed on 18.09.2014. 20. On 18.09.2014, at the request of the counsel on either side, the matter was adjourned to 19.09.2014. On 19.09.2014, this Court heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General. Despite service of notice and printing of the names of the respondents 7, 11 and 13, they did not appear. The respondents 6, 9 and 12 appeared through counsel. Notice sent to respondents 8 and 10 had been returned and I held that service of notice to R-8 and R-10 was sufficient because they had evaded service of notice. Thereafter, the matter was argued at length by the counsel on either side and when this Court was about to pass orders, the learned Additional Advocate General sought time to get further instructions from the Secretary, Education Department, in order to make his further submissions. Accordingly, the matter was adjourned to 22.09.2014. 21. On 22.09.2014, this Court recorded that copies of the Enquiry Officer's Report and the documents annexed therein had been furnished to the learned Additional Advocate General and the learned counsel for the petitioner, already. The learned counsel for the petitioner further argued the matter at length and completed his argument. The learned Additional Advocate General also argued the matter, in part. This Court further recorded that a perusal of the records would go to show that the report of the enquiry officer was dated 16.06.2014 and the same was placed before the Court on 15.09.2014. This Court further recorded as follows: “But so far, the original files which were taken from this Court by the Enquiry Officer have not been submitted. Even the report of the Enquiry Officer has not been paginated and it is in loose sheets along with documents. There are lot of doubts regarding the report of the Enquiry Officer which the learned Additional Advocate General could not clear across the bar, during his arguments. Without the original files the matter cannot be disposed of. Even the report of the Enquiry Officer has not been paginated and it is in loose sheets along with documents. There are lot of doubts regarding the report of the Enquiry Officer which the learned Additional Advocate General could not clear across the bar, during his arguments. Without the original files the matter cannot be disposed of. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the presence of Mr.C.V.Sankar, I.A.S., who acted as Enquiry Officer is essential along with the records, before this Court, because the matter requires deep consideration. 3. Therefore, Mr.C.V.Sankar, I.A.S., is directed to be present before this Court tomorrow (23.09.2014) at 10.30 a.m. He is directed to resubmit the original files received by him from this Court, at 10.30 a.m. On 23.09.2014.” The learned Additional Advocate General submitted that he had received a letter from the Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, to seek an adjournment in order to engage the learned Advocate General on behalf of the official respondents. Having considered the same, this Court recorded the following. “At this length of time, since the matter has been pending for more than a year, and since the matter is part heard, such long adjournment cannot be given. If the Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, wants to engage the Advocate Genera, it is up to her to decide. But the matter has already been argued at length not only for one day, but for few days. Therefore, it could be adjourned only till tomorrow (23.09.2014) for the appearance of the Enquiry Officer. The learned Additional Advocate General may continue his arguments on 23.09.2014. The learned Additional Advocate General shall ensure the presence of Mr.C.V.Sankar, I.A.S., before this Court on 23.09.2014 at 10.30 a.m.” 22. On 23.09.2014, when the matter was taken-up, the learned Additional Advocate General submitted that Mr.C.V.Sankar, I.A.S., Principal Secretary to Government, could not be present as he was pre-occupied in the Cabinet Meeting. The said explanation was accepted and this Court, however, directed that the Enquiry Officer should be present before this Court on 24.09.2014, without fail. It was also recorded that the original records of the Office of the District Educational Officer, Usilampatti, which were taken from this Court, were not resubmitted and this Court therefore directed the Enquiry Officer to produce the original records so that the case could be disposed of. It was also recorded that the original records of the Office of the District Educational Officer, Usilampatti, which were taken from this Court, were not resubmitted and this Court therefore directed the Enquiry Officer to produce the original records so that the case could be disposed of. That is how the matter is before this Court, today, for disposal. 23. Today, Mr.C.V.Sankar, I.A.S., the Enquiry Officer, is present. He has also produced the original files in a sealed cover. The learned Advocate General Mr.A.L.Somayaji has entered appearance for the official respondents, assisted by the learned Additional Advocate General Mr.K.Chellapandian. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has no more arguments to submit because he has already argued the case at length. The counsel for respondents 6, 9 and 12 were also heard. The respondents 7, 11 and 13 have not made appearance despite notice and printing of their names in the cause list. As I have already recorded, service of notice on respondents 8 and 10 is sufficient and even today, they have not appeared. 24. I have heard the learned Advocate General and I have also sought for certain clarifications from the Enquiry Officer Mr.C.V.Sankar, who is present before this Court. 25. As had been recorded by the Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.MANIKUMAR, in the order dated 29.08.2013, the records revealed that there were instructions from the Director of School Education on 26.07.2012, instructing the District Educational Officer, Usilampatti, to make selection based on the recommendation letters and also to submit the recommendation letters to the Directorate on or before 29.07.201 itself. As it was noticed during the earlier hearings, the file produced before this Court from the District Educational Office, Usilampatti, did not contain any of the recommendation letters, though it has been so mentioned in the selection list under the tabulation that such letters were received from a Hon'ble Minister, MLAs and the District Secretary of a political party. AS I have already mentioned, it was reported to this Court, during the earlier hearings, by the officials of the District Educational Office, Usilampatti, that such recommendation letters were, in fact, received but they were all submitted to the Director of School Education. AS I have already mentioned, it was reported to this Court, during the earlier hearings, by the officials of the District Educational Office, Usilampatti, that such recommendation letters were, in fact, received but they were all submitted to the Director of School Education. As I have already mentioned, the then Director of School Education was present before this Court and he submitted that no such instructions were ever given by him and he did not receive any such recommendation letters from the Office of the District Educational Office, Usilampatti. The file maintained in the Office of the Director of School Education also did not reveal any such letters. 26. Now, in the enquiry report, the enquiry officer has stated that in fact, few recommendation letters, numbering 16, were received. Along with the report, the Enquiry Officer has produced the recommendation letters in the names of The Hon'ble Minister for Co-operation, the Member of Legislative Assembly, Madurai North Constituency, Madurai District Secretary of a political party and also the Member of Legislative Assembly, Tirumangalam Constituency and the Member of Legislative Assembly, representing Usilampatti Constituency. 27. Though it is stated in the report that these letters were now produced before the enquiry officer, by the then District Educational Officer Mr.Santhamoorthi, the enquiry officer did not enquire and give any finding as to why these letters were not kept along with the files. He has also not enquired as to whether really these letters were given by the Hon'ble Minister, MLAs and the District Secretary of the political party concerned. It is not uncommon that letters of officials of higher echelons are now a days forged and they are also utilized for personal ends. Very recently, cases have been reported in the State that even SSLC mark sheets, +2 mark sheets, Degree certificates were all manufactured by some unscrupulous elements and they were sold to various individuals in the State. When that is the situation, it is really surprising as to how no enquiry was held by the enquiry officer to go into the question as to whether these letters were really given by the Minister, MLAs and District Secretary of a political party. When that is the situation, it is really surprising as to how no enquiry was held by the enquiry officer to go into the question as to whether these letters were really given by the Minister, MLAs and District Secretary of a political party. When the enquiry officer was questioned by this Court as to how he concluded that these letters were in fact given by the above mentioned politicians, he submitted that it is not uncommon in these days that in the matter of public employment such letters are given by Hon'ble Ministers, MLAs and other politicians. This revelation by the enquiry officer is really shocking. As I have already pointed out, at the beginning of this order, the people, who seek public employment pin their hope on the equality clause guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and they do have immense faith in the officials involved in the selection process. An officer in the cadre of Principal Secretary has revealed to this Court that out of his experience he states that such letters are received in these days from politicians, Ministers and MLAs in the matter of public employment. This Court pointed out to him that if Ministers and MLAs representing people of their constituencies and other politicians give letters, recommending for construction of a school building, laying roads, etc., certainly it is not illegal but it is legal, as they are expected to make such recommendations to the Government officials to air the grievance of the people whom they represent. But, it is unfortunate that in this State, as it is revealed by the Principal Secretary, that such recommendation letters are given even in the matter of selection for public employment. In my considered opinion, this practice should be deprecated and it should be put an end to. If any such recommendation letter is given by any politician to any officer who is involved in the selection process, I am sure that it will amount to interference with the selection process, which is expected to be done only on the basis of merit. The politicians, who issue such letters of recommendations influencing the officials who are involved in the selection process or making such influence in any other form, are to be prosecuted before the Courts of law because such acts of the politicians, in the eye of law, are unlawful. 28. The politicians, who issue such letters of recommendations influencing the officials who are involved in the selection process or making such influence in any other form, are to be prosecuted before the Courts of law because such acts of the politicians, in the eye of law, are unlawful. 28. Now, turning to the facts of the present case, such recommendation letters, according to the report of the enquiry officer, were given. But, it has not been thoroughly enquired as to whether these letters were really given by the politicians concerned, because as I have already pointed out, it is also not uncommon in these days that such letters are forged. When it is pointed out to the enquiry officer as to whether on this aspect his report is defective, he tacitly admitted before this Court that his report is defective. This statement is recorded. 29. When the enquiry officer was asked as to why these letters were kept by the DEO with him, without keeping the same with the office file to show his bona fides that the selection was made only on the basis of merits and not on recommendations, the enquiry officer has got no reply. He would submit that it did not strike to his mind that this aspect should be clarified. 30. The enquiry officer has concluded that the selection was made only on merits and not on recommendations. In this regard, he submitted that he so concluded, based on the statement made by Mr.Shanthamoorthi, who was involved in the selection process. The enquiry officer recorded a statement from Mr.Shanthamoorthi during enquiry. In the said statement, Mr.Shanthamoorthi, inter alia, has stated as follows; “Tamil” Recommendations “Tamil” (Question: Whether any recommendation was received) “Tamil” (Answer: Lot of recommendations were received) “Tamil” Recommendations “Tamil” selection “Tamil” (Question: Whether selection was made on the basis of the recommendations) “Tamil” Recommendation go selection “Tamil” Communal Roster “Tamil” selection “Tamil” recommendation “Tamil” selection “Tamil” recommendation “Tamil” (Answer: No, Selection was not based on recommendation. Selection was made on the basis of Employment Exchange seniority, communal roster and priority. Selection was made on the basis of Employment Exchange seniority, communal roster and priority. In this, some candidates, who had recommendations, also might have got selected.)” For yet another question, he has answered like this; “Tamil” (Question: What for this information was asked for?) “Tamil” : Recommendation My; “Tamil” (Answer: In order to ensure that selection was not made only on recommendation and that merit was not discarded, I hope this information was called for.”) This question relates to the instructions given by the Director, admittedly to the DEO to depute an officer to come with the selection list, along with all the records. When the enquiry officer asked the DEO as to why these information were called for, he answered that in order to ensure that the selection was not made only on the basis of recommendation but also on the basis of merit, that this instruction was given. 31. When, this matter was argued, yesterday, the learned Additional Advocate General made strenuous efforts to persuade this Court that the report of the enquiry officer is flawless and the same should be accepted. When this particular answer given by Mr.Shanthamoorthi that the selection was not made only on the basis of the merit but also on the basis of the recommendations was brought to his notice, he submitted that this answer means that the selection was made on the basis of the merit but, recommendation letters were also there. This explanation offered by the learned Additional Advocate General did not persuade this Court. Today, when this particular answer was brought to the notice of the enquiry officer Mr.C.V.Sankar, who is present in Court, he submitted that this answer means that the selection was made not only on the basis of recommendations but also on the basis of merit. This statement of Mr.C.V.Sankar is recorded. 32. The enquiry officer has concluded in his report that the selection was made only on the basis of merit and not on the basis of the recommendation. But this conclusion of the enquiry officer is based on the statement given by Mr.Shanthamoorthi and the statement of other witnesses. This statement of Mr.C.V.Sankar is recorded. 32. The enquiry officer has concluded in his report that the selection was made only on the basis of merit and not on the basis of the recommendation. But this conclusion of the enquiry officer is based on the statement given by Mr.Shanthamoorthi and the statement of other witnesses. When he was directed to explain to the Court as to how he did come to such a conclusion, when there were recommendation letters and when in the file itself it is recorded that out of eight persons, six persons were selected only on the basis of recommendations and only two were selected on the basis of merit, he submitted that the person, who selected the candidates viz., Mr.Shanthamoorthi, himself has stated that he made the selection only on the basis of merit. This explanation of the enquiry officer cannot be accepted at all for the simple reason that a court of law cannot expect a person who has committed an illegality or irregularity to admit readily that he committed such an illegality or irregularity in the matter of selection. In no case, under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Government servants have admitted that they committed misconduct. In almost all the cases, the Government officials involved in the misconduct in terms of Prevention of Corruption Act, do deny the same. Therefore, it is surprising as to how the enquiry officer, without making a thorough enquiry into various aspects of the matter, rushed to the conclusion that the selection was made only on the basis of merit and not on the basis of the recommendations. In this regard, I have reasons to hold that the enquiry officer's report is defective. 33. At the same time, I want to clarify that it is not the expectation of this Court that the enquiry report should be to the effect that the selection was made based on recommendations. Per contra, it is the endeavour of this Court to find out whether these letters were in fact given by the politicians and whether these letters really influenced the mind of the selecting authority. I hold that these letters would have certainly influenced the selection process. For such conclusion, I shall give my reasons in the latter of this order. 34. I hold that these letters would have certainly influenced the selection process. For such conclusion, I shall give my reasons in the latter of this order. 34. The enquiry officer has concluded that the phone message, dated 26.07.2012, would not have been given by the Director of School Education. When he was asked as to how he did conclude so, he said that he concluded so on the basis of the statements given by the officials of the Directorate of School Education. He further submitted that even in the phone call receipt register maintained in the DEO's Office, there is no entry for receipt of the said phone call. But Mr.Mayan, in whose handwriting the so called phone message has been recorded, has given a statement before the Enquiry Officer reiterating the earlier statement which he made before the Court that he received such a message only from the Directorate of School Education and he reduced the same into writing. Before this Court as well as before the enquiry officer, however, he has stated that he could not identify the person who actually spoke to him over phone, which is quite natural. In such an event, the enquiry officer should have taken efforts to verify the telephone call details from the Postal and Telephone Department to verify whether such phone call was received by the District Educational Officer, Usilampatti, from any of the phone numbers of the Director's Office. This has not been done. Above all, in page of 155, Mr.Mayan has mentioned various phone numbers. There was no effort taken by the enquiry officer to verify as to whether those phone numbers were that of the office of the Director of School Education and as to whether phone call was made from any one of those phone numbers to DEO's Office, Usilampatti. 35. When these defects were pointed out, the learned Advocate General submitted that if the Court is not satisfied with the findings of the enquiry officer and the procedure adopted by him, this Court may either issue further directions to the very same officer to hold further enquiry and to submit an additional report or if the Court deems fit, the Court may appoint a different officer for the said purpose. The said statement of the learned Advocate General is also recorded. 36. The said statement of the learned Advocate General is also recorded. 36. From the statement of Mr.Mayan, one thing is very certain, i.e. such a message was received from somebody. Who is that some body and who gave the message is not at all known. But he has recorded that. It is not the finding of the enquiry officer that Mr.Mayan did not receive any such message at all from any quarters. It is not the finding of the enquiry officer that Mr.Mayan, on his own, out of imagination, with some ulterior motive, had recorded such a statement in the official register. When that be so, it needs to be found out as to who spoke over phone to Mr.Mayan. This has not been done. 37. Now, as I have already pointed out, the message is that selection should be made on the basis of the recommendation letters and if there is no such recommendation letter in favour of anybody, then the DEO shall make selection on the basis of merit. It is also stated that before finalising the selection list, the list should be shown to the MLA and thereafter, it should be brought to the office of the Director of School Education on 29.07.2012, along with the recommendation letters. There are two subsequent letters sent by the Director's Office, through e-mail seeking explanation as to why final selection list was not brought to the Director's Office. It is also on record that the list was thereafter taken to Chennai to the Director's Office and with their concurrence, final selection list was made and appointment orders were issued. It is not explained by the enquiry officer as to why this course was adopted. Had it been true, I only apprehend, that phone message, dated 26.07.2012, was not really received calling upon the DEO to produce the selection list along with recommendation letters on 29.07.2012, it is not explained by the enquiry officer as to why these two letters were sent and there was no enquiry into these aspects. 38. At this juncture, the mysterious disappearance of the recommendation letters at the time when the files were produced before this Court, on the earlier occasion, assumes much importance. Now, the said letters, according to the enquiry officer, were produced by Mr.Shanthamoorthi. According to the phone message, the letters should have been submitted to the Joint Director. 38. At this juncture, the mysterious disappearance of the recommendation letters at the time when the files were produced before this Court, on the earlier occasion, assumes much importance. Now, the said letters, according to the enquiry officer, were produced by Mr.Shanthamoorthi. According to the phone message, the letters should have been submitted to the Joint Director. On the earlier occasion when the officers of the District Educational Office were present before this Court, they made a statement that the letters were handed over to the Director's Office, in pursuance of the above phone message. So, regarding the receipt of the recommendation letters and the final selection, there are lot of mysterious circumstances, which are to be unravelled by some other agency. 39. “Ceasor's wife should be above suspicion.” Similarly, selection to public employment should be beyond doubt. If it is tainted with such malpractices namely, nepotism, favourtism, etc., the same offends Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, the same should be interfered with by this Court. In this case, though there are various versions coming up, one thing is very clear that the recommendation letters were there in the hands of the District Educational Officer, the selecting authority, before the selection commenced. The instruction from the Office of the Director of School Education (Whether given from Director's Office or not?), was also very much available before him. These letters and the so-called instruction would have certainly influenced the minds of the people involved in the selection process. 40. The recommendation letters along with the selection list was taken to Chennai, shown to the officials of the Directorate of School Education and thereafter only, it was finalised. At this juncture, the letters disappeared. Under the Right to Information Act, when the information was called for, copies taken from the original file were given, which clearly revealed that the selection of respondents 7, 9, 10, 11, 12 & 13 were made only on the basis of recommendations. The selection of respondents 6 & 8 were made on merits. Thus, out of 8 appointments, six are tainted by recommendation, influence and nepotism. This is not like a criminal case where a fact is to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The selection of respondents 6 & 8 were made on merits. Thus, out of 8 appointments, six are tainted by recommendation, influence and nepotism. This is not like a criminal case where a fact is to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. In service jurisprudence, if the Court is satisfied that the selection is tainted with any of the above malpractices, then, it is for this Court to interfere with the selection and, therefore, in this case, I am inclined to set aside the appointment of the respondents 7, 9, 10, 11, 12 & 13. So far as the respondents 6 & 8 are concerned, since, even according to the records, they were appointed only on merits, I am not inclined to set aside their appointments. The respondents 7, 9, 10, 11, 12 & 13 have not stated as to how their appointments were made on merits, as they claim. 41. Simply setting aside the appointments of the respondents 7, 9, 10, 11, 12 & 13 would not be suffice as, in my considered opinion, the officials or the public servants, who are involved in this episode, are to be taken into task as per the relevant service rules or under the penal law, for that they are to identified. 42. In this regard, the suggestion of the learned Advocate General is that Mr.C.V.Sankar, I.A.S., - the very same officer – may be directed to hold further enquiry and submit an additional report, in the alternative, to direct any other officer to hold enquiry, afresh. So far as Mr.C.V.Sankar, is concerned, going by the way in which he has conducted enquiry and the way in which he has deduced the conclusions and submitted his report, I am of the view that it would not be, in the interest of justice, to again entrust the matter to him. This Court has lost hope in him. Considering the alternative suggestion made by the learned Advocate General, this Court is in a position to accept the same. In my considered opinion, going by the ramifications involved in this issue, which may even cover the appointments made for watchmen sweeper posts throughout the State, a person who is trained in investigation skill alone could be entrusted with the job to hold proper enquiry. In my considered opinion, going by the ramifications involved in this issue, which may even cover the appointments made for watchmen sweeper posts throughout the State, a person who is trained in investigation skill alone could be entrusted with the job to hold proper enquiry. For this purpose, I am of the view that entrusting the matter for holding Vigilance Enquiry by an Officer in the cadre of I.P.S. alone would meet the needs. The Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-corruption, Southern Region, Tamil Nadu, in my considered opinion, would be the appropriate officer to whom the task of vigilance enquiry could be entrusted. 43. It is submitted by the learned Additional Advocate General that one Mr.Xavier Dhanraj is presently holding the post of Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-corruption, Southern Region, Chennai. Therefore, I am inclined to issue a direction to him to hold a detailed vigilance enquiry and to submit a report to the Government, for further action and it is for the Government to take further action in this matter on receipt of such a vigilance enquiry report. 44. Coming to the grievance of the petitioner that he has not been selected, though I am setting aside the appointments of the respondents, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12 & 13, I am not in a position to issue a direction to appoint the petitioner, since I cannot conclude that he is, in all respects, more meritorious than the other candidates. Therefore, when a fresh selection is conducted by the District Educational Officer, Usilampatti, as against these vacancies, the petitioner shall also be considered on the basis of merit. 45. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of in the following terms: (i) The appointments of Respondents 7, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 are hereby set aside. The 5th respondent is at liberty to make fresh selection as against these vacancies and while doing so, the petitioner shall be considered for selection, on the basis of merit. 45. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of in the following terms: (i) The appointments of Respondents 7, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 are hereby set aside. The 5th respondent is at liberty to make fresh selection as against these vacancies and while doing so, the petitioner shall be considered for selection, on the basis of merit. (ii) It is directed that Mr.Xavier Dhanraj, Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (Southern Region), Tamil Nadu, shall hold Vigilance Enquiry into the above episode, more particularly about the selection of watchmen as well as sweepers, in the light of the recommendation letters which are available on file and submit a detailed Vigilance Enquiry Report to the Government in respect of the above episode and thereafter it shall be for the Government to take appropriate action against the officials against whom there are prima facie materials that they have committed misconduct. Mr.Xavier Dhanraj, the Superintendent of Police, will also be at liberty to initiate prosecution against the persons concerned, if it is found that they have committed any offence under the provisions of any penal law, including the Prevention of Corruption Act. Such enquiry shall be completed by him within a period of six months and he shall submit a report to the Government within the said time frame. 46. The Registry shall keep the Report of the Enquiry Officer and the original file produced by the District Educational Officer, Usilampatti, returned by Mr.C.V.Sankar, I.A.S., Principal Secretary to Government, Industries Department, along with the copies of original file already taken and keep the samw in a sealed cover, in a sealed Cover. Mr.Xavier Dhanraj, the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (Southern Region), Tamil Nadu, Chennai, is at liberty to approach the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court for return of all the documents, in which case, the Registrar (Judicial) shall take xerox copies of the Report of Mr.C.V.Sankar and the documents annexed thereto and then hand over the original report and the documents filed along with report, under acknowledgment. Similarly, on request, the Registrar (Judicial) shall return the original file of the District Educational Office, Usilampatti, returned by Mr.C.V.Sankar, to Mr.Xavier Dhanraj, under acknowledgement. Until then, all these records and documents shall be kept in a sealed cover by the Registrar (Judicial). Similarly, on request, the Registrar (Judicial) shall return the original file of the District Educational Office, Usilampatti, returned by Mr.C.V.Sankar, to Mr.Xavier Dhanraj, under acknowledgement. Until then, all these records and documents shall be kept in a sealed cover by the Registrar (Judicial). After return of these records and documents to Mr.Xavier Dhanraj, the xerox copies of the Enquiry Report and the documents annexed thereto as well as the xerox copies of the original file of the District Educational Office, Usilampatti, shall be kept in a sealed cover, until further orders. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 47. Before parting with the case, I would like to record my deep appreciation for the fairness on the part of the learned Advocate General, who, at the outset, submitted that if the Enquiry Report is not to the satisfaction of the Court, the same could be set aside and some other enquiry could be ordered. I also record my appreciation for the service rendered by the learned Additional Advocate General Mr.K.Chellapandian, throughout the hearing of this case, on various occasions, to assist the Court to unearth the truth, in the case. Similarly, my appreciation goes to the learned counsel for the petitioner as well.