JUDGMENT Hon’ble Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi, J.—The instant special appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 24.3.3005 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 37964 of 2004 (Vimal Pratap Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others) whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition with a direction to Registrar General of this Court to constitute a committee to examine the entire selection process held in Etah Judgeship for recruitment of Class III posts and to submit a report to the Administrative Judge. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. Some background facts, in brief, are that appellants were candidates for direct recruitment against 9 vacancies of Class III posts in the judgeship of Etah. The advertisement for such posts was published in two newspapers Zila Times and Rozgar Sangrah, both dated 14.11.2003. The appellants participated in the written examination held on 14.12.2003. However, several complaints were made against the examination process including the complaints regarding selection and appointment of a large number of wards of the employees of the judgeship and of corrupt practices including taking of illegal gratification for the appointments. The Administrative Judge, Etah on receipt of some complaints stayed the declaration of result for verifying the selection process vide his order dated 28.8.2004 which was communicated to the District Judge by way of fax and also by D.O. Letter. Despite this, the list of selected candidates was approved and forwarded by the Chairman of the Examination Committee to the District Judge, Etah on 1.9.2004 and the District Judge accepted the report on the same day and published the list of selected candidates. The District Judge not only proceeded to declare the result on 1.9.2004 but he also issued the appointment letters on the same day. All the selected candidates joined on 2.9.2004. Under the aforesaid circumstances, a detailed enquiry was conducted wherein the charges levelled against the Chairman of the Selection Committee were found proved to the effect that 8 wards of Civil Court’s staff were found placed in the selection list/waiting list and even the candidates below the age of 18 years were found to have permitted to participate in the written test. Thus, the entire selection process was found unfair and non transparent. Thus, the entire selection process was found unfair and non transparent. Moreover, the great hurry and hot haste in which appointment letters were issued within 24 hours of the declaration of the result and joining of all the selected candidates on the next day, made the entire selection process suspicious and doubtful. Under these circumstances, the Administrative Judge, Etah who had sufficient reasons to believe that the then District Judge, Etah, despite having full knowledge about the order dated 28.8.2004, proceeded with the selection with a view to frustrate his order and completed the entire proceedings with exceptional haste, directed the District Judge to cancel the result. Therefore, the result of the appellants was cancelled as mentioned above. 3. The order dated 3.9.2004 passed by the District Judge, Etah cancelling their appointments was challenged by the appellants by means of Writ Petition No. 37964 of 2004 which was dismissed vide impugned order dated 24.3.2005. 4. The appellants have challenged the legality and correctness of the impugned order mainly on the ground that the candidates were not given the opportunity of hearing before cancelling their results and the learned Single Judge has wrongly presumed that there was malpractice in selection only on the basis of the fact that the District Judge completed the entire exercise of selection very hastily. No opportunity of hearing was given to the candidates even in the enquiry conducted by the High Court. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned standing counsel and on a perusal of the impugned judgment it appears that the learned Single Judge had called for original records including the direction of Administrative Judge and the reports of the then District Judge, Etah. Learned single judge, after perusal of aforesaid records has recorded a clear finding that 8 candidates out of 27 selected candidates in the select list were the relatives of the employees of the judgeship. It was also noted that on the same day i.e. 1.9.2004 the District Judge accepted the report of the Selection Committee, prepared the roster and issued appointment letters and allowed all the appellants to join on 2.9.2004 i.e. the next date. It is surprising to note as to how all this exercise could have been completed within 24 hours between 1.9.2004 and 2.9.2004. 6. It is surprising to note as to how all this exercise could have been completed within 24 hours between 1.9.2004 and 2.9.2004. 6. The impugned order shows that the writ Court has clearly observed that the District Judge was fully aware of the order passed by the Administrative Judge on 28.8.2004 directing him not to declare the result and there was no such urgency to complete the entire exercise of submissions of results, acceptance, preparation of roster, issuance of appointment letters and joining within 24 hours, but the District Judge in flagrant defiance of the order of this Court declared the result. Therefore, the writ Court, relying on the judgements of State of M.P. v. Shyama Pardhi, 1996 7 SCC 118 , Ashwani Kumar v. State of Bihar; 1997 (2) SCC 1 , Vinod Kumar v. State of U.P.; 1998 (1) ESC 770 and Union of India v. Tulsi Ram Patel; (1985)3 SCC 379, dismissed the writ petition by holding that when the selections were cancelled on the ground, not attributable to any one or more candidates, the principle of natural justice cannot said to have been violated even in case no opportunity of hearing was given to the candidates. 7. Having heard learned counsel from both sides and considering their rival submissions, we are of the firm view that there is no reason to differ with the opinion of learned single judge. 8. In this regard the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Union of India and others v. O. Chakradhar, (2002) 3 SCC 14, may be quoted wherein it has been held by the Apex Court that : “Where the mischief in conducting the selection was so widespread and all pervasive, affecting the result, that it was difficult to identify the persons unlawfully benefited or wrongfully deprived of selection, held, the whole selection could be cancelled without issuing individual show-cause notice to each person selected.” 9. The High Court under Article 235 of the Constitution of India has been entrusted with the duties of superintendence of the working of the subordinate Courts. This includes not only the judicial officers but also the employees of the subordinate Courts and to ensure that the selection of the employees are held without any arbitrariness and favouritism. The record shows that a detailed enquiry has been held in this matter by the High Court. This includes not only the judicial officers but also the employees of the subordinate Courts and to ensure that the selection of the employees are held without any arbitrariness and favouritism. The record shows that a detailed enquiry has been held in this matter by the High Court. The enquiry report is available as C.A. 1 to the counter-affidavit which discloses that the charges have been found proved against the judicial officers involved in the selection process which has vitiated the entire selection. 10. Testing all the facts and circumstances of the present case on the touch stone of law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India v. O. Chakradhar (supra), we are of the firm view that because the reason for cancellation of appointment in the present case is not attributable to the appellants, there is no requirement of giving them opportunity of hearing and there was no violation of principle of natural justice if they were not given the opportunity of hearing before cancellation of their selection. For these reasons, we are not inclined to interfere in the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. The appeal lacks merit and is liable to dismissed. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. ——————