Judgment : V.K. Bist, J. Uttarakhand Public Service Commission (Hereinafter referred to as the Commission) issued advertisement on 04.12.2011, inviting applications from the eligible candidates for the post of Assistant Professors in various Government Degree/Post Graduate Colleges within the State of Uttarakhand. Total 272 posts of Assistant Professors were advertised in different subjects, including (B.Sc. Home Science). Only one vacancy was notified for the post of Assistant Professor (B.Sc. Home Science). Petitioner applied for the said post. Upon short-listing, the Commission called 36 candidates for interview against one unreserved post of Assistant Professor (B.Sc. Home Science). Petitioner was also called for interview. 2. Two separate interview board were constituted for interviewing 36 candidates. One interview board was headed by Dr. Chhaya Shukla, whereas another interview board was headed by Professor Manjula Rana. Each board consisted of one Chairman with three subject experts. After interviewing the candidates, the result was kept in sealed cover. On 24.02.2014, the Commission received a complaint from one Shri Shyam Lal, an alleged RTI Activists, SIDCUL, Haridwar, in which he has alleged that one interview board was headed by Dr. Chhaya Shukla, who is relative of Mr. Alok Pandey, ADM, Haridwar and the petitioner is relative of Mr. Alok Pandey. The petitioner was a candidate in the said board and on the persuasion of Dr. Chhaya Shukla-Chairman of the board; the petitioner was awarded 74 marks. Copy of the said complaint was also addressed to His Excellency the Governor, Govt. of Uttarakhand, Chief Minister of Uttarakhand and all the members of the Commission. On receiving the complaint, confidential report was sought from Dr. Chhaya Shukla, Chairman of said board and other members of the interview board. The Chairman Dr. Chhaya Shukla and other member of the board submitted their reply informing that the marks of the candidates were awarded by the interview board by way of consensus, neither persuasion was done, nor anyone was pressurized and marks were awarded as per the performance of the candidates. None of them gave any clarification in respect of awarding 74 marks to the petitioner. Thereafter, the matter was placed before the Commission on 24th June, 2014 and the Commission was of the unanimous view that the allegation is baseless and false. None of them gave any clarification in respect of awarding 74 marks to the petitioner. Thereafter, the matter was placed before the Commission on 24th June, 2014 and the Commission was of the unanimous view that the allegation is baseless and false. But, since in the complaint, it was pointed out that the Chairman of the interview board persuaded other members of the interview board for awarding 74 marks to the petitioner, and since the same was not denied in the clarification given by the members, the Commission resolved that since in the complaint the sanctity and reliability of the interview held on 13th January, 2014 has been confronted and it has been alleged against the interview board that the marks have been awarded to a particular candidate, which was not refuted by the Chairman of the interview board or by the subject experts, therefore, in order to maintain the sanctity and confidentiality of the process of interview and in order to maintain the dignity of the Commission intact, result of the interview examination, held for the subject in question, on 13th and 14th January, 2014, be cancelled even before its finalization. It was also resolved by the Commission that interview of the subject shall be conducted afresh. English translation of the resolution (as supplied by the learned counsel for the petitioner) is being reproduced below: “Minutes of Commission’s special meeting dated 24th June, 2014. Presence:- 1. Dr. D.P. Joshi-Chairman 2. Prof. Manjula Rana-Member 3. Shri N.S. Negi-Member 4. Shri M.C. Upreti-Member 5. Shri Sanjay Sharma-Member 6. Shri C.S. Dharamsattu- Examination controller/Acting Secretary. Today on 24th June, 2014 in UKPSC special meeting intensive discussion were held on an undated letter of Mr. Shyamlal RTI activist SIDCUL, Haridwar, which had been sent to PSC Chairman and members separately and in which certain allegations regarding the interview examination of B.Sc. (Home Science) held on 13 January, 2014 has been leveled. After receiving the letter the Commission had sought comments from the interview board’s chairman and subject expects on the facts of the complaint. The comments sent by the subject experts are similar. The interview board’s chairman has mentioned in his/her comments that the candidate who has been alleged to be his/her relative. In the complaint letter that particular candidate isn’t related to him/her blood, marriage or adoption. In this way the complaint is according to him/her is baseless. The comments sent by the subject experts are similar. The interview board’s chairman has mentioned in his/her comments that the candidate who has been alleged to be his/her relative. In the complaint letter that particular candidate isn’t related to him/her blood, marriage or adoption. In this way the complaint is according to him/her is baseless. It has been mentioned in the complaint letter that the chairman of the UKPSC had deliberately appointed that particular interview board’s chairman so that the candidate mentioned in the complaint is selected by the interview. In the relation to this allegation it is noteworthy that the rules of the process for constitution of an interview board are completely clear and transparent and these had been followed word to word by the commission in the constitution of the interview board for the interview examination, which was held on 13th January, 2014. It is also noteworthy that in the process of the interview board it is not certain or fixed that which candidate will appear before which interview board. The allegation in this process is completely baseless and false. Allegation has been leveled in the complaint letter regarding the marks given to the candidates, according to the complaint the candidate was given 74 marks and that these marks were given on constant pleading by the interview board’s chairman and the subject expert had expressed his/her objection. In the view of the above allegations questions has been raised regarding the transparency and credibility of the interview examination dated 13th January, 2014. This allegation has not been refuted by the interview board’s chairman and subject expert. In the above interview it has been alleged that interview board has allotted unfair marks to a particular candidate. The fear that the purity and credibility of the process of the interview examinations held on the aforesaid dates 13th and 14th January, 2014, may be cancelled and in order to assure to maintain the dignity of the commission, it has been decided unanimously that the result of the subject in question (B.Sc. Home Science) for interview examination were held on 13th and 14th January, 2014 is cancelled even before its preparation. The commission has decided the aforesaid subjects interview examination be held again.” Signatures of (Sanjay Sharma)-Member, (Dr. Chhaya Shukla)-Member, (Sumer Chand Ravi)-Member, (M.C. Upreti)-Member, (N.S.Negi)-Member, (Pro. Manjula Rana)-Member and (Dr. D.P. Joshi)-Chairman. 24.06.2014. 3. Home Science) for interview examination were held on 13th and 14th January, 2014 is cancelled even before its preparation. The commission has decided the aforesaid subjects interview examination be held again.” Signatures of (Sanjay Sharma)-Member, (Dr. Chhaya Shukla)-Member, (Sumer Chand Ravi)-Member, (M.C. Upreti)-Member, (N.S.Negi)-Member, (Pro. Manjula Rana)-Member and (Dr. D.P. Joshi)-Chairman. 24.06.2014. 3. The said result was signed by the Chairman of the said board and other six members of the board. Thus, the decision was taken by the Chairman and all the members of the Commission. Thereafter, result of interview was cancelled and a decision was taken for conducting fresh interview and, accordingly, a fresh interview was conducted. In the meantime, the petitioner approached this Court and filed writ petitioner for the following reliefs:- “i.) Declare the decision taken by respondent no.1 to cancel the interview for the post of Assistant Professor (B.Sc. Home Science) in the absence of any material justifying the decision, as arbitrary and illegal. ii.) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned decision dated 24.06.2014 (contained as annexure no.5 to the writ petition). iii.) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding respondent no.1 to open the sealed cover containing the marks-sheet/score-sheet of candidates interviewed by the interview board on 13th and 14th January, 2014 and to make appropriate recommendation to the State Government for making appointment to the post of Assistant Professor (B.Sc. Home Science). iv.) Issue any other writ, order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. v.) Award the cost of the writ petition in favour of the petitioner.” 4. On 13.08.2014, this Court, while granting time to the Commission for filing counter affidavit, passed an interim order directing that while the re-interview for the posts of Assistant Professor (B.Sc. Home Science) can go on, it will not be finalized and the proceedings will also be subject to the result of the writ petition. 5. Mr. Manoj Tewari, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner contended that infact the petitioner was taken aback when she came across a notification issued by the Commission on 11.07.2014 published in Hindustan Daily Newspaper. By the said notification, all concerned were informed that the interview for the post in question held on 13th and 14th January, 2014 has been cancelled. Mr. Manoj Tewari, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner contended that infact the petitioner was taken aback when she came across a notification issued by the Commission on 11.07.2014 published in Hindustan Daily Newspaper. By the said notification, all concerned were informed that the interview for the post in question held on 13th and 14th January, 2014 has been cancelled. Thereafter, one Lalit Narain Mishra, who is a family friend of the petitioner, disclosed to the petitioner, based on information received under Right to Information Act, that the interview for the post of Assistant Professor (B.Sc. Home Science) has been cancelled, on some complaint regarding relation between petitioner and Dr. Chhaya Shukla. 6. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner contended that the allegation that Dr. Chhaya Shuka persuaded other members to award 74 marks to the petitioner for interview did not make any sense. He submitted that performance of a candidate, in interview, is assessed on a hundred-point scale and even if the petitioner is given 74 marks out of 100, as alleged in the complaint, then she could be easily surpassed by any other candidate by scoring 75 or more marks. He contended that the Chairman and all members of the interview board are required to put their signatures on score sheet/marks sheet of the candidates. In such circumstances, it is incorrect to say that the marks so awarded were given under pressure. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner further contended that the petitioner is not related to Dr. Chhaya Shukla in any manner whatsoever. Neither is she in blood relation nor related, through marriage, to the petitioner or her family, therefore, the allegation that petitioner and Dr. Shukla are relatives, is false and erroneous. It is also contended by the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner that decision to cancel interview/selection affects a large number of candidates, therefore, such decision cannot be taken in a casual manner, rather such decision must be informed with reasons and it should also be based upon strong reasons. Whereas, in the present case, the decision, canceling the interview, is based on no material substance, except on the false and motivated complaint. 7. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner then contended that the complaint made by respondent no.2 was not tenable, as it was nowhere supported by any affidavit or by any evidence. Whereas, in the present case, the decision, canceling the interview, is based on no material substance, except on the false and motivated complaint. 7. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner then contended that the complaint made by respondent no.2 was not tenable, as it was nowhere supported by any affidavit or by any evidence. The person, who made the complaint, was not asked to file an affidavit and without affidavit, no cognizance could have been taken on such complaint. The complaint is made with fictitious name and it does not disclose any address and only ‘SIDCUL’ is mentioned in the address. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner further submitted that the Chairman and other members of the board categorically stated that marks were awarded in accordance with the performance of the candidates, and there was no justification for canceling the result of the interview. This is an extreme step and it should not be taken in a casual manner. He contended that for formation of some opinion, there must be some substance and in the present case, there was no such material or substance available before the Commission and the decision taken by the Commission, is per-se illegal. In support of his contention, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner relied on paragraph nos. 43, 46, 54, 55, 56 of the judgment of Hon’ble the Apex Court, reported in 2006 (11) SCC 356 ‘Inderpreet Singh Kahlon and others vs. State of Punjab and others’, which reads as follows: “43. Apart from inferences drawn on certain facts and in particular the circumstances enumerated by the High Court which have been repeated by the learned counsel for the State before us, it is difficult to accept that it was demonstrated by the State that it was absolutely impossible for it to separate the innocent people from the tainted ones. 46. A distinction moreover exists between a proven case of mass cheating for a board examination and an unproven imputed charge of corruption where the appointment of a civil servant is involved. 54. In Benny T.D. v. Registrar of Coop. Societies this Court repelled a contention raised therein that in view of the findings of the Public Inquiry Commission that there has been tampering of marks in respect of several candidates and as such there has been no fair and objective selection, public interest demanded annulment of the entire selection. 54. In Benny T.D. v. Registrar of Coop. Societies this Court repelled a contention raised therein that in view of the findings of the Public Inquiry Commission that there has been tampering of marks in respect of several candidates and as such there has been no fair and objective selection, public interest demanded annulment of the entire selection. This Court held that the same could not be done as the same would tantamount to gross violation of the principles of natural justice which cannot be brushed aside on the ground that public interest demands annulment of the selection. 55. Yet again in Onkar Lal Bajaj v. Union of India this Court while dealing with a case of en masse cancellation of the licences granted to the LPG distributors as a result whereof unequals were said to have been clubbed by reason of arbitrary exercise of executive power, the same was held to be impermissible stating: (SCC p. 693, para 45) “45. The solution by resorting to cancellation of all was worse than the problem. Cure was worse than the disease. Equal treatment to unequals is nothing but inequality. To put both the categories—tainted and the rest—on a par is wholly unjustified, arbitrary, unconstitutional being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.” It was further held: (SCC p. 694, para 46) “46. The aforesaid observations would apply with equal if not more force to DSBs if media exposure that the allotments were made either to the high political functionaries themselves or their near and dear ones is correct, the authorities would not only be justified in examining such cases but it would be their duty to do so. Instead of fulfilling that duty and obligation, the executive cannot unjustly resort to cancellation of all the allotments en masse by treating unequals as equals without even prima facie examining any cases exposed by the media.” This Court further observed: (SCC pp. 690-91, paras 35-36) “35. The expression ‘public interest’ or ‘probity in governance’ cannot be put in a straitjacket. ‘Public interest’ takes into its fold several factors. There cannot be any hard-and-fast rule to determine what is public interest. The circumstances in each case would determine whether government action was taken in public interest or was taken to uphold probity in governance. 36. The role model for governance and decision taken thereof should manifest equity, fair play and justice. ‘Public interest’ takes into its fold several factors. There cannot be any hard-and-fast rule to determine what is public interest. The circumstances in each case would determine whether government action was taken in public interest or was taken to uphold probity in governance. 36. The role model for governance and decision taken thereof should manifest equity, fair play and justice. The cardinal principle of governance in a civilised society based on rule of law not only has to base on transparency but must create an impression that the decision making was motivated on the consideration of probity. The Government has to rise above the nexus of vested interests and nepotism and eschew window-dressing. The act of governance has to withstand the test of judiciousness and impartiality and avoid arbitrary or capricious actions. Therefore, the principle of governance has to be tested on the touchstone of justice, equity and fair play and if the decision is not based on justice, equity and fair play and has taken into consideration other matters, though on the face of it, the decision may look legitimate but as a matter of fact, the reasons are not based on values but to achieve popular accolade, that decision cannot be allowed to operate.” 56. Yet again in Union of India v. Rajesh P.U., Puthuvalnikathu this Court observed: (SCC p. 290, para 6) “Applying a unilaterally rigid and arbitrary standard to cancel the entirety of the selections despite the firm and positive information that except 31 of such selected candidates, no infirmity could be found with reference to others, is nothing but total disregard of relevancies and allowing to be carried away by irrelevancies, giving a complete go-by to contextual considerations throwing to the winds the principle of proportionality in going farther than what was strictly and reasonably to meet the situation. In short, the competent authority completely misdirected itself in taking such an extreme and unreasonable decision of cancelling the entire selections, wholly unwarranted and unnecessary even on the factual situation found too, and totally in excess of the nature and gravity of what was at stake, thereby virtually rendering such decision to be irrational.” 8. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner further placed reliance upon paragraph-6 of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court, reported in 2003 (7) SCC 285 ‘Union of India and others vs. Rajesh P.U. Puthuvalnikathu and another, which reads as under:- “6. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner further placed reliance upon paragraph-6 of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court, reported in 2003 (7) SCC 285 ‘Union of India and others vs. Rajesh P.U. Puthuvalnikathu and another, which reads as under:- “6. On a careful consideration of the contentions on either side in the light of the materials brought on record, including the relevant portions of the report said to have been submitted by the Special Committee constituted for the purpose of inquiring into the irregularities, if any, in the selection of candidates, filed on our directions — which report itself seems to have been also produced for the perusal of the High Court — there appears to be no scope for any legitimate grievance against the decision rendered by the High Court. There seems to be no serious grievance of any malpractices as such in the process of the written examination — either by the candidates or by those who actually conducted them. If the Board itself decided to dictate the questions on a loudspeaker in English and Hindi and none of the participants had any grievance in understanding them or answering them, there is no justification to surmise at a later stage that the time lapse in dictating them in different languages left any room or scope for the candidates to discuss among them the possible answers. The posting of invigilators for every ten candidates would belie any such assumptions. Even that apart, the Special Committee constituted does not appear to have condemned that part of the selection process relating to conduct of the written examination itself, except noticing only certain infirmities only in the matter of evaluation of answer-sheets with reference to correct answers and allotment of marks to answers of some of the questions. In addition thereto, it appears that the Special Committee has extensively scrutinized and reviewed the situation by re-evaluating the answer-sheets of all the 134 successful as well as the 184 unsuccessful candidates and ultimately found that except 31 candidates found to have been declared successful though they were not really entitled to be so declared successful and selected for appointment there was no infirmity whatsoever in the selection of the other successful candidates than the 31 identified by the Special Committee. In the light of the above and in the absence of any specific or categorical finding supported by any concrete and relevant material that widespread infirmities of an all-pervasive nature, which could be really said to have undermined the very process itself in its entirety or as a whole and it was impossible to weed out the beneficiaries of one or the other irregularities, or illegalities, if any, there was hardly any justification in law to deny appointment to the other selected candidates whose selections were not found to be, in any manner, vitiated for any one or the other reasons. Applying a unilaterally rigid and arbitrary standard to cancel the entirety of the selections despite the firm and positive information that except 31 of such selected candidates, no infirmity could be found with reference to others, is nothing but total disregard of relevancies and allowing to be carried away by irrelevancies, giving a complete go-by to contextual considerations throwing to the winds the principle of proportionality in going farther than what was strictly and reasonably to meet the situation. In short, the competent authority completely misdirected itself in taking such an extreme and unreasonable decision of cancelling the entire selections, wholly unwarranted and unnecessary even on the factual situation found too, and totally in excess of the nature and gravity of what was at stake, thereby virtually rendering such decision to be irrational.” 9. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner also relied upon paragraph nos. 24 and 26 of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court, reported in 2010 (10) SCC 707 , ‘Girjesh Shrivastava and others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, which reads as follows:- “24. The High Court while dismissing the review petitions stated that in view of the grave irregularity of allowing near relations to appear in the selection process, the entire selection had been rightly set aside. This finding is a rather sweeping one as factually it appears that in WP (C) No. 63 of 2002 none of the members of the Selection Committee allowed their near relatives to appear as candidates. It is, therefore, important to note that the selection process had been struck down on the ground of presence of near relatives in WP (C) No. 1529 of 2001 alone and not in WP (C) No. 63 of 2002. 26. It is, therefore, important to note that the selection process had been struck down on the ground of presence of near relatives in WP (C) No. 1529 of 2001 alone and not in WP (C) No. 63 of 2002. 26. From these facts it can be concluded that the alleged participation of near relatives in the selection process was not such a factor as to vitiate the entire selection process. Even if there were some illegal beneficiaries from the selection process, they should have been weeded out instead of striking down the entire selection process.” 10. Per contra, Mr. B.D. Kandpal, learned counsel for the Commission submitted that in normal circumstances, the result is not cancelled, but it is a case where allegation was made against the Chairman of the board and for saving the credibility of the Commission, the Commission took a decision to cancel the interview proceedings and to hold a fresh interview. He further contended that the selection process was not complete and result was not declared, and in such circumstances, by holding a fresh interview, no prejudice is caused to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the Commission further contended that infact, 36 candidates were interviewed and how the petitioner came to know that she alone is selected, inasmuch as, she alone is effected by the result, this entails some suspicion. Learned counsel for the Commission lastly argued that the petitioner is estopped to challenge the selection, as she herself participated in the interview and the writ petition, deserves to be dismissed on this count alone. 11. At this, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has participated in the interview under protest. 12. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. While hearing the matter on 11.09.2014, the following order was passed by us:- “We record the submission of the learned counsel for the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission that the marks obtained by the petitioner in first interview will be made available to the Court on the next date” 13. The record pertaining to the selection was produced before us. We have carefully perused the same. We find that the marks awarded to the petitioner are slightly more than, what has been alleged by the complainant. We also find that in the said interview board, other candidates were awarded less/very less marks. The record pertaining to the selection was produced before us. We have carefully perused the same. We find that the marks awarded to the petitioner are slightly more than, what has been alleged by the complainant. We also find that in the said interview board, other candidates were awarded less/very less marks. We also find that in this regard, few members of the Commission met the Chairman and showed their concern about the credibility of the Commission. Thereafter, report was called for from the Chairman of the board as well as other members of the board. They all replied. Dr. Chhaya Shukla, Chairman of the board replied in detail. She replied in following manner. “Hon’ble Chairman, UKPSC No. 79/APS/2014-15, Date: 03/03/2014 This is with reference to letter no. 193/ ih-,l-@v-dk- /2014, my verdict on section ^d^ vkSj ^[k^ of the letter is as follows:- SECTION ^d^ :- No pleading of any kind neither in case of mentioned candidate nor in case of any other candidate has ever been made to any expert during any of the interviews conducted till date. Marks of each candidate have been finalized with the mutual consent of all the experts of the board. The marks sheets were duly signatured by all the experts and also got sealed in their presence. SECTION ^[k^ : I am not at all related with the mentioned candidate neither by the ties of blood, marriage nor adoption. Further, I am very well aware of motto of UKPSC to work with unbiased attitude, transparency and excellency. I have diluted each word of OATH OF SECRECY, in my blood and working with a promise to maintain the highest of it throughout my association with the Commission and afterwards too. With regards, Yours faithfully, Sd. 03.03.2014 (Dr. Chhaya Shukla) Member.” 14. Other members also replied and stated that they were not persuaded to award higher marks to the petitioner, but surprisingly, the reply given by the expert is same. Only sender’s name and letter number is changed. It is identical word-by-word. Their reply is also referred hereinafter. With regards, Yours faithfully, Sd. 03.03.2014 (Dr. Chhaya Shukla) Member.” 14. Other members also replied and stated that they were not persuaded to award higher marks to the petitioner, but surprisingly, the reply given by the expert is same. Only sender’s name and letter number is changed. It is identical word-by-word. Their reply is also referred hereinafter. ^^izs"kd Mk0 izfeyk izlkn] ih0th0 fMikVZeSaUV vkWQ gkse lkbal ¼QwM ,.M U;wfVz~’ku½] Vh0,e0 Hkkxyiqj fo’ofo|ky;] fcgkjA Lskok esa] ijh{kk fu;U=d] mRrjk[k.M yksd lsok vk;ksx] gfj}kjA egksn;] vkids Ik=kad la[;k% 122@ih-,l-@Ik-fu-@2013&14] fnukad 03 vizSy] 14 ds dze esa fuEukuqlkj voxr djkuk gS%& 1&vflLVSaV izksQslj] x`g foKku ds in gsrq vk;ksftr lk{kkRdkj ifj"knksa esa lfEefyr vH;fFkZ;ksa dks lk{kkRdkj ifj"kn~ }kjk vkilh lgefr ls vad iznku fd;s x;s FksA 2& mDr lk{kkRdkj ifj"knksa esa esjs }kjk vH;fFkZ;ksa dks iznku fd;s x;s vadksa dh xksiuh;rk lHkh izdkj ls lqfuf’pr dh x;h gSA Hkonh; gLrk{kj 10-04-2014 ¼Mk0 izfeyk izlkn½] ih0th0 fMikVZeSaUV vkWQ gkse lkbal ¼QwM ,.M U;wfVz~’ku½] Vh0,e0 Hkkxyiqj fo’ofo|ky;] fcgkjA 15. None of them has said that whether 74 marks were awarded to the petitioner or not. 16. Though, in the resolution dated 24.06.2014, the Commission was of the unanimous view that allegation is baseless and false but it was resolved that since in the complaint the sanctity and reliability of the interview held on 13th January, 2014 has been confronted and it has been alleged against the interview board that the marks have been awarded to a particular candidate, which was not refuted by the Chairman of the interview board or by the subject experts, therefore, in order to maintain the sanctity and confidentiality of the process of interview and in order to maintain the dignity of the Commission intact, the result of the interview examination, held for the subject in question, on 13th and 14th January, 2014, be cancelled even before its preparation. It was also resolved by the Commission that interview of the subject shall be conducted afresh. In our view, the Commission is an Examining Body. The general public has great faith in the impartiality of the Commission. The functions of the Commission should not only be impartial but also to be transparent. In the present matter, for preserving its credibility, the Commission took a decision to cancel the interview result. Moreover, it is not a case, where the petitioner has finally been selected. The general public has great faith in the impartiality of the Commission. The functions of the Commission should not only be impartial but also to be transparent. In the present matter, for preserving its credibility, the Commission took a decision to cancel the interview result. Moreover, it is not a case, where the petitioner has finally been selected. The petitioner appeared before the Commission likewise the other candidates. She was again given opportunity to appear before the Commission and she appeared before the interview board again. In case, if she obtains highest marks, she will be selected. We think that decision was taken by the Commission at appropriate time, without giving any opportunity to anyone to raise finger against it. We also think that by asking the Commission to cancel the second interview and to declare the result of first interview will not be, at all, justified. The case law cited by the learned Senior Advocate will not help the petitioner in any manner, as this is a case where decision has been taken by the Commission, before the declaration of final result. Such decision was taken by the Commission for saving the credibility of the Commission. 17. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that this is not a case, where interference of this Court is warranted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition fails and is liable to be dismissed as such. 18. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. 19. Original record is returned to Shri B.D. Kandpal, Counsel for the Commission.