JUDGMENT Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. 1. All these petitions since pertain to the controversy of selection process/appointment of teachers pursuant to the same advertisement dated 6.8.2012 published by the Committee of Management RMPPV Inter College Gurukul Narsan, Haridwar, hence are being taken up together for adjudication. 2. The order of this Court denying ad interim injunction in Writ Petition No. 1047/2015 filed by Smt. Deepti was challenged in the Special Appeal No. 318/2015, especially with the plea that this Court granted such interim injunction in Writ Petition No. 1012/2015 filed by Ms. Shweta Agarwal, while the services of both as Lecturer in the college were seized by the same impugned order dated 25.5.2015 passed by the Manager of such college. So, the learned Division Bench of this Court observed the expectation to pass similar orders in similar matters. With this observation, appellant Smt. Deepti was permitted to move an application afresh for seeking interim relief again from this Court. 3. As the facts are unfolded while hearing the injunction application moved afresh by Smt. Deepti, the entire controversy has been surfaced now right from the publication of the advertisement and selection of Smt. Deepti on the post of Lecturer of Art, Ms. Shweta Agarwal for English and at the same time, rejection of the candidature of Smt. Kalpana at the time of scrutiny of all the applications itself in the office of Education Officer concerned. So, this Court is impelled to take all these writ petitions together for adjudication and, at the same time, to look back the judicial propriety of granting ad interim injunction in favour of Ms. Shweta Agarwal against the impugned order dated 25.5.2015. 4. The facts as countenanced in the supplementary affidavit dated 21.6.2015, filed by Smt. Kalpana in her petition along with annexures, were never brought before this Court at the time of hearing on the ad interim injunction application moved by Ms. Shweta Agarwal in her petition. So, unhesitatingly, it may be observed that the same was nothing short of hiding the true facts. 5. Shweta Agarwal in her petition. So, unhesitatingly, it may be observed that the same was nothing short of hiding the true facts. 5. True, the selection of Smt. Deepti was challenged by Smt. Kalpana in her writ petition, but at the same time, the facts could not have been ignored at the time of hearing the ad interim injunction application moved by Smt. Deepti in her petition that at such time, the learned Advocate of Smt. Kalpana appeared to resist the application of Smt. Deepti, highlighting the entire facts. So, it was not justifiable for this Court to grant similar relief having looked the entire facts depicting the gross irregularities, nepotism and favouritism in the whole selection process. This situation did not exist at the time of granting the ad interim injunction to Ms. Shweta Agarwal. So, she found favour of the Court. 6. Having heard learned Counsel of each and every party including State, it was highlighted that pursuant to the advertisement dated 6.8.2012, published by the Committee of Management for the six posts of Lecturer in different subjects, interview was held in March, 2013. The candidates had to apply in the office of concerned Education Officer after receiving the prescribed form from that place itself. A number of candidates applied for each post in different subjects. Since the applications were quite large in number, so their applications were shortlisted. Smt. Deepti was placed at top position out of such shorlisted seven candidates, whose names were forwarded by the office of Education Officer to the Interview Committee including the Principal and Manager of such college. Smt. Kalpana could never know as to when her candidature was rejected and date of interview was fixed. So, there was no occasion for her to know the ex parte process of such selection. At certain later point of time in 2013 itself, she came to know that rejecting her candidature in shortlisting itself, she was left aside even from calling for the interview. So, she inquired further and came to know the real happenings. 7. Otherwise also, the complaints from sundry corners were made to the Government as regards the favouritism, nepotism and unfair selection. So, high-level enquiries were conducted. So, she inquired further and came to know the real happenings. 7. Otherwise also, the complaints from sundry corners were made to the Government as regards the favouritism, nepotism and unfair selection. So, high-level enquiries were conducted. First of all, enquiry report dated 30.8.2013, filed as enclosure with the rejoinder affidavit in the petition of Smt. Kalpana and which runs in several pages, discloses such irregularities on a number of scores in all the subjects. The Court does not want to burden the judgment by reproducing the findings of Additional Director here. 8. Another enquiry was conducted at the initiation of Secretary, Anti-corruption, Government of Uttarakhand by the Additional District Magistrate (Administration), Haridwar and his report dated 3.6.2014 along with the elaborate facts and findings of the enquiry also concurs the earlier enquiry conducted by the Additional Director. 9. On the top of it, further a Committee was constituted including Mr. Bhupendra Singh Negi, Joint Director, Intermediate Education, Uttarakhand, Dr. Mukul Kumar Sati, Chief Education Officer, Haridwar and Mr. Anand Bhardwaj, Deputy Director (Legal), Intermediate Education, Uttarakhand, and their report dated 9.1.2015 was submitted to the Director, Intermediate Education, who in turn wrote a letter dated 17.1.2015 to the Chief Education Officer, Haridwar for necessary action in the matter. The enquiry report of this Committee is quite elaborate and runs in as many as 15 pages discussing and dealing with each and every appointment (including the appointment of Smt. Deepti as well as Ms. Shweta Agarwal) and this Committee has found the entire selection process as vitiated and recommended cancellation of the same. So, pursuant to this recommendation, the Chief Education Officer has directed the management to pass the impugned orders. 10. Argument of learned Sr. Counsel of the writ petitioner of Ms. Shweta Agarwal and Smt. Deepti that no opportunity of hearing was rendered to them is quite unsubstantial because they were accorded due opportunity more than once, but it seems that in collusion of the Management of College, they did not appear before the Committee on one pretext or the other. 11. Obviously, they had nothing to say about the fact of their selection based on nepotism and favourtism, right from the process of shortlisting in the office of Education Officer to the final selection. It was very surprising that Mr. 11. Obviously, they had nothing to say about the fact of their selection based on nepotism and favourtism, right from the process of shortlisting in the office of Education Officer to the final selection. It was very surprising that Mr. Vineet Kumar, husband of Smt. Deepti was the Primary Education Teacher and he along with two outsiders participated in scrutinising and shortlisting the forms in the office of concerned Education Officer to manage non-wanted candidates away even from this initial stage of shortlisting. 12. It has been glossed by learned Counsel of Smt. Kalpana that her merit marks based on the objectivity of all the relevant marksheets/certificates were 83.16, while such marks of Smt. Deepti was 78.78. Even if the minimum marks which were granted to the candidates (not selected) in the interview, might have been granted to Smt. Kalpana, then she must have been the top candidate in the final selection. 13. I do agree with the contention of learned Counsel for Smt. Kalpana that rejection of her application on frivolous grounds of not attaching the employment registration certificate or the certificate of permanent residence was quite unjustified. Even she was not informed about the rejection of her application in such shortlisting on these unsubstantial grounds. More so, there was no such condition displayed in the advertisement. 14. In view of what has been stated above, I find that the Writ Petition No. 1012/2015 and 1047/2015 have no force at all and these are liable to be rejected. Both these petitions are hereby dismissed accordingly. Interim order granted by this Court in WPSS No.1012 of 2015 stands vacated to maintain parity on similar facts. 15. At the same time, relief claimed by Smt. Kalpana regarding re-organising the interview by calling her amongst others also cannot be granted to her because the entire selection process was found full of gross irregularities, as has been highlighted in three high-powered enquiries. So, her petition WPSS No. 1470/2013 also looses its relevance for the reason that the entire selection process has been declared vitiated on account of gross irregularities and favouritism and the appointment of teachers have now been cancelled. Hence, this writ petition of Smt. Kalpana is disposed of in above terms.