JUDGMENT Hon’ble B. Amit Sthalekar, J.—Heard Sri S.N. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vikram Bahadur Yadav, learned standing counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioners who are 23 in number are seeking quashing of the order dated 7.5.2016 whereby the selection on contract basis for various posts under the NPCDES Programme by the Human Resources Department has been cancelled. The petitioners are also seeking quashing of the order dated 13.5.2016 notifying the order dated 7.5.2016 in furtherance of National Health Mission Scheme of the Government of India and its implementation in different districts. 3. An advertisement was issued on 24.2.2016 published in the newspaper ‘Amar Ujala’ on 26.2.2016. Applications were invited for various posts. The petitioners No. 1,2, 3 and 4 submitted their applications for the post of Senior Treatment Supervisor under the National Tuberculosis Control Programme. The petitioner No. 3 submitted his application under the OBC category and the petitioner No. 4 submitted his application under the SC category. The petitioner No. 5 submitted his application for the post of Lab Technician in the general category. Petitioner No. 6 submitted her application for the post of Staff Nurse under the SC category. Petitioner Nos. 7 and 8 submitted their applications for the post of Staff Nurse under the general category and OBC respectively. Petitioner No. 9 applied for the post of Lab Technician under the SC category. Petitioner No. 10 submitted his application for the post of Staff Nurse in the general category. Petitioner No. 11 submitted his application for the post of Lab Technician in the general category. Petitioner Nos. 12 and 13 submitted their applications for the post of Staff Nurse in general category. Petitioner No. 14 submitted his application for the post of Staff Nurse under the OBC category. Petitioner No. 15 submitted her application for the post of Staff Nurse under the SC category. Petitioner No. 16 submitted her application for the post of District Leprosy Advisor under the general category. Petitioner No. 17 submitted her application for the post of Block Prgramme Manager under the OBC category. Petitioner No. 18 submitted her application for the post of Staff Nurse under the OBC category. Petitioner No. 19 submitted her application for the post Nutrition Care Taker under the general category. Petitioner No. 20 submitted her application for the post of Nutrition Care Taker under the general category. Petitioner No. 18 submitted her application for the post of Staff Nurse under the OBC category. Petitioner No. 19 submitted her application for the post Nutrition Care Taker under the general category. Petitioner No. 20 submitted her application for the post of Nutrition Care Taker under the general category. Petitioner No. 21 submitted his application for the post of Block Data cum Account Assistant under the OBC category, petitioner No. 22 submitted his application form for the post of Para Medical Worker and petitioner No. 23 submitted his application for the post of Lab Technicion under the OBC category. 4. According to the petitioners, they possess all the requisite qualifications for the posts against which they have applied. It is stated that a Selection Committee was constituted comprising Chief Medical Officer, Jalaun, at Orai as President and four members namely City Magistrate, Orai, C.M.O. Superintendent District Mahila Hospital and Additional Chief Medical Officer as well as District Tuberculosis Decease Officer. The petitioners were called for interview and after verification of documents they were declared successful. It is stated that earlier one Sri Ram Ganesh was the District Magistrate, Jalaun but he was transferred and therefore he could not put his signature on the select list. One Sandeep Kaur took over charge as the District Magistrate and put his signature on the select list as Chairman of the Selection Committee. Thereafter the select list was issued on 31.3.2016. It is stated that earlier the last date for joining was 31.3.2016 but since the select list itself was published on 31.3.2016, the date of joining was extended upto 30.4.2016. However, the petitioners were not permitted to join on their selected posts and no letter of appointment was issued. It is alleged that one Sri Bhanu Pratap Verma, Member of Parliament and one Sri Daya Shanker Verma, local MLA written a complaint to the District Magistrate, Orai alleging irregularties made in the selection and claiming that no joining be given and the select list be cancelled on the ground that some writ petition had been filed being Writ Petition No. 12779 of 2016, Sant Ram v. State of U.P. and others. On receipt of the complaint the District Magistrate through his letter dated 7.4.2016 endorsed the same to the Additional District Magistrate to look into the matter. On receipt of the complaint the District Magistrate through his letter dated 7.4.2016 endorsed the same to the Additional District Magistrate to look into the matter. In the meantime the petitioner submitted an application on 10.5.2016 requesting that appointment letter be issued to them. 5. In paragraph 32 of the writ petition it is stated that in the select list 68 candidates have been shown as selected but not a single candidate has been allowed to join including the petitioners. It is stated that the Writ Petition No. 12774 of 2016, Sant Ram v. State of U.P. and others was subsequently dismissed on 18.4.2016 but still no appointment letter was issued to the petitioners and in the meantime by the impugned order dated 7.5.2016 and 13.5.2016 the entire selection as well as the select list has been cancelled. It is stated that no reasons have been given for cancellation of the selection and therefore, the order is cryptic and in any case it has been cancelled on a complaint of a Member of Parliament and a local M.L.A. therefore the selection has been cancelled on political consideration and therefore the impugned orders are tainted by malafides. The petitioners also contend that before cancelling the selection no opportunity of hearing was given to them 6. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents in which it is stated that no doubt there was a complaint with regard to the manner in which the selection was held and select list issued but thereafter a Committee was constituted headed by the Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue) which examined the entire matter and submitted its report on 30.4.2016. In his report the Committee has disclosed that in the select list the marks have been manipulated and overwritten by the Chief Medical Officer. In the marks given in the interview overwriting has been done and there are other irregularities. It is further stated that the selection committee was constituted on 5.3.2016 and comprised of; 1. Dr. Ajeet Kumar Jaiswal, C.M.O. Jalaun (President) 2. Sri P.K. Saxena, City Magistrate, Orai at Jalaun (Member) 3. Dr. Sunita Banodha, C.M.O. District Womens Hospital, Orai (Member) 4. Dr. B.M. Khair Additional C.M.O. (Member) 5. Dr. Sugreev Babu, District Tuberculosis Officer (Member) 7. It is further stated that the selection committee was constituted on 5.3.2016 and comprised of; 1. Dr. Ajeet Kumar Jaiswal, C.M.O. Jalaun (President) 2. Sri P.K. Saxena, City Magistrate, Orai at Jalaun (Member) 3. Dr. Sunita Banodha, C.M.O. District Womens Hospital, Orai (Member) 4. Dr. B.M. Khair Additional C.M.O. (Member) 5. Dr. Sugreev Babu, District Tuberculosis Officer (Member) 7. It is not in dispute that the select list was published on 31.3.2016 but thereafter considering the complaints made by local M.L.A. Sri Daya Shanker Verma and Member of Parliament Sri Bhanu Pratap regarding irregularities in the selection an inquiry was ordered in the matter. The allegations made in paragraph 45 and 46 of the writ petition that the select list was cryptic and was not even pasted on the notice board has been denied in paragraph 17 of the counter-affidavit since Priti Soni, petitioner No. 19, Babi Sabina, petitioner No. 17, Renu Verma, petitioner No. 16, Kaushal Kishor, petitioner No. 8, Devendra Singh Bhadauriya, petitioner No. 5, Santosh Devi, petitioner No. 20, R.K. Sharma, petitioner No. 11, Ekta Singh, petitioner No. 18 have themselves submitted an application before the District Magistrate, Jalaun at Orai (Annexure-14 to the writ petition) stating that when they went to the office of the C.M.O. on 13.7.2016 they saw that the order of cancellation dated 7.5.2016 was pasted on the notice board therefore the averments in paragraph 45 and 46 of the writ petition are false averments. 8. A perusal of the impugned order of cancellation dated 7.5.2016 clearly mentions the reasons for cancellation of the selection based upon the report of the enquiry committee. The reasons may be encapsulated as under: 1. The selection did not have the approval of the erstwhile District Magistrate. 2. The photographs of the selected candidates were not verified. 3. The original tabulation sheets were tampered with by the C.M.O. and members of the Selection Committee. 4. There was overwriting in the marks given during interview. 5. All the members of the selection committee had not signed the final result of the interview. 6. Non verification of the documents of the selected candidates. 7.Candidates did not possess the documents regarding requisite eligibility qualifications for the post for which they applied. These irregularities were pointed out by the Member of Parliament and the local M.L.A. upon which the Enquiry Committee was constituted. 9. 6. Non verification of the documents of the selected candidates. 7.Candidates did not possess the documents regarding requisite eligibility qualifications for the post for which they applied. These irregularities were pointed out by the Member of Parliament and the local M.L.A. upon which the Enquiry Committee was constituted. 9. Alongwith the counter-affidavit the respondents have filed the result which was earlier prepared on 14.3.2016 before the allegations and complaints started pouring in. The manipulations in the marks awarded to the candidates by Dr. Sunita Banaudha may be summarized as under : Sl. No. 7, Guru Devi had obtained 2 marks which has been shown to read as 3 marks through overwriting. Sl.No. 11, Smt. Vijay Laxmi Vajpai was also initially given 2 marks which has been made to read as 3 marks through overwriting. Sl.No. 12, Smt. Minakshi Tiwari was given 2 marks manipulated to read as 3 marks. Sl.No. 27, Shazia Afreen has been given 6 marks but overwriting is clear. Sl.No. 32, Deepak Goswami was also given 5 marks but thereafter marked ‘A’ (Absent) Sl.No. 34, Avita Sachan was given 4 marks which has been made to read as ‘A’ (Absent) Sl.No. 35, Nitisha Budhauliya has been given 5 marks but there is overwriting. Sl.No. 41, Radha Katiyar was given 4 marks which has been made to read as ‘A’ (Absent) Sl.No. 42, Dinesh Singh was given 4 marks which has been made to read as 5 marks through overwriting. Sl.No. 43, Amit Kumar was given 3 marks through overwriting. Sl.No. 50, Manoj Kumar Rajpoot has been given 4 marks after scoring out 7 originally given. Sl.No. 52, Nikita Verma was given 3 marks which has made to read as 6 marks. Sl.No. 55, Jitendra Yadav has been given 6 marks through overwriting. S.No. 57, Shalini Devi 2 marks has been overwritten to read as 3 marks. Sl.No. 62, Archana Yadav there is overwriting to read as 4 marks. Sl.No. 69, Smt. Beena Khare (petitioner No. 13) 7 marks has been made to read as 4 marks. Sl.No. 70, Sonam Devi Sachan 2 marks has been made to read as 3 marks by overwriting. Sl.No. 77, Neeta Singh, 4 marks has been made to read as ‘A’ (Absent) Sl.No. 78, Taj Khan, 2 marks has been made to read as 3 marks. Sl.No. 85, Nidhi Devi, 5 marks has been made to read as 6 marks through overwriting. Sl.No. 77, Neeta Singh, 4 marks has been made to read as ‘A’ (Absent) Sl.No. 78, Taj Khan, 2 marks has been made to read as 3 marks. Sl.No. 85, Nidhi Devi, 5 marks has been made to read as 6 marks through overwriting. Sl.No. 88, Lata Dohre, there is overwriting in the marks 6. Sl.No. 89, Subhash Chandra, 2 marks has been made to read as 3 marks. Sl.No. 92, Sangeeta Soni, 3 marks has been made to read as 5 marks. Sl.No. 98, Archana Singh, 5 marks has been made to read as 6 marks. Sl.No. 100, Amit Kumar, 1 mark has been made to read as 7 marks. Sl.No. 106, Ramkumari Pal, 2 marks has been made to read as 5 marks. Sl.No. 108, Kumari Jyoti Katiyar, 1 mark has first been cancelled and then made to read as 4. Sl.No. 111, Manu Pal, 4 marks has been made to read as 7 marks. Sl.No. 112, Shweta Devi, 1 mark has been made to read as 7 marks. Sl.No. 115, Ajeet Kumar, 2 marks has been made to read as 5 marks. Sl.No. 118, Anita Verma, 4 marks has been made to read as ‘A’ (Absent) Sl.No. 132, Nand Kishor Rajpoot, 1 mark has been made to read as 5 marks. Sl.No. 133, Smita Sachan, 4 marks has been made to read as ‘A’ (Absent) Sl.No. 134, Pinki Rani, 1 mark has been made to read as 4 marks. Sl.No. 141, Narendra Kumar Goswami, 1 mark has been made to read as 4 marks. Sl.No. 144, Bharti, 2 marks has been made to read as 3.5 marks. Sl.No. 147, Sandhya Tripathi, 1 mark has been made to read as 4 marks. Sl.No. 154, Divankshi Trivedi, 4 marks has been made to read as 6 marks. Sl.No. 161, Akansha Yadav, 1 mark has been made to read as 6 marks. Sl.No. 162, Rachna Sengar, 1 mark has been made to read as 7 marks. Sl.No. 165, Snehlata, 7 marks has been made to read as 02 marks. Sl.No. 167, Anuj Kumar, 1 mark has been made to read as 7 marks. Sl.No. 168, Sabana Fatma, 5 marks has been made to read as 6 marks. Sl.No. 170, Upasana Kushwaha shown ‘A’ (Absent) with overwriting. Sl.No. 171, Mandvi Sharma, 2 marks has been made to read as 5 marks. Sl.No. 167, Anuj Kumar, 1 mark has been made to read as 7 marks. Sl.No. 168, Sabana Fatma, 5 marks has been made to read as 6 marks. Sl.No. 170, Upasana Kushwaha shown ‘A’ (Absent) with overwriting. Sl.No. 171, Mandvi Sharma, 2 marks has been made to read as 5 marks. Sl.No. 182, Jorge S. Dix, 4 marks has been made to read as ‘A’ (Absent) Sl.No. 183, Nilesh, 1 mark has been made to read as 5 marks. Sl.No. 190, Arjani Devi, 1 mark has been made to read as 7 marks. Sl.No. 192, Swati Verma, 1 mark has been made to read as 7 marks. Sl.No. 197, Sandhya Kashyap, 1 mark has been made to read as 4 marks. Sl.No. 198, Samata has been given 5 marks through overwriting. Sl. No. 199, Nitin Kumar has been given 6 marks through overwriting. Sl.No. 200, Ramkant has been given 7 marks through overwriting. Sl.No. 202, Kranti Devi, 1 mark has been made to read as 4 marks. Sl.No. 205, Sunil Kumari has been given 4 marks through overwriting. Sl.No. 209, Kumari Jharna Helen James, 1 mark has been made to read as 6 marks. Sl.No. 212, Manju Lata Sahu, 5 marks has been made to read as 6 marks. Sl.No. 213, Varsha Parihar, 2 marks has been made to read as 5 marks. 10. In addition to the irregularites noted above from Annexure-CA-1 to the counter-affidavit a perusal of the report dated 30.4.2016 submitted to the District Magistrate (Annexure-2 to the counter-affidavit) mentions that so far as the candidates for the post of Sick Newborn Care Unit Staff Nurse the Committee found that the educational testimonials/documents of the following candidates were not verified : 1. Mamta Khan 2. Pratiksha Sharma (petitioner No. 12) 3. Shiromani Vajpai 4. Jyoti Jha 5. Yashpal Singh (petitioner No. 14) 6. Pallavi Sakyavar 7. Rachana Dwivedi 11. For the post of A.N.M. the educational testimonials/documents of the following selected candidates were not verified; 1. Rinki Devi 2. Santoshi Devi 3. Bina Kumari 4. Chandravati Pal 5. Kalpana Devi 6 Sadhan 7. Kumari Chandani 8. Pratibha Sakya 12. For the post of Chaukidar/Sweeper the educational testimonials/documents of the following selected candidates were not verified; 1. Ram Siya 2. Pradeep Kumar 13. For the post of Senior Treatment Supervisor (S.T.S) the educational testimonials/documents of Mohd. Irfan (petitioner No. 1) were not verified. 14. Chandravati Pal 5. Kalpana Devi 6 Sadhan 7. Kumari Chandani 8. Pratibha Sakya 12. For the post of Chaukidar/Sweeper the educational testimonials/documents of the following selected candidates were not verified; 1. Ram Siya 2. Pradeep Kumar 13. For the post of Senior Treatment Supervisor (S.T.S) the educational testimonials/documents of Mohd. Irfan (petitioner No. 1) were not verified. 14. For the post of Lab Technician Blood Bank the candidates were required to have diploma in Lab Technician as well as registeration certificate under the Central Government or the U.P. State Medical Faculty + Six months working experience + Knowledge of Computer. Petitioner No. 5, Devendra Singh Bhadauriya’s Lab Technician Diploma was not from the Central Government or the U.P. State Medical Faculty. For the same post the educational testimonials/documents of the selected candidate Sri Pavnesh Gautam (petitioner No. 9) were never verified. 15. For the post of Lab Attendant Blood Bank the educational requirement was High School. For this post selected candidate Sri Ravindra Kumar Sharma’s (petitioner No. 11) educational testimonials/documents were never verified. 16. For the post of Staff Nurse Nutrition Rehabilitation Centre the educational qualification was required to have G.N.M. Diploma + Registration with the Medical Faculty, Lucknow but in the case of following selected candidates there was no registered G.N.M. Certificates and their educational testimonials were also not verified. 1. Sahnaj Bano 2. Guru Devi 3. Jeevan Lal 17. For the post of District Leprosy Adviser under N.L.E.P. Programme the requisite educational qualification was M.B.B.S./B.A.M.S./B.H.M.S. + three years registered experience in Health under the U.P. Medical Council with Knowledge of Computer. The candidates were required to submit their educational testimonials alongwith their application forms. The form of Dr. Praveen Kumar Paliwal (petitioner No. 16) selected candidate was not supported with his educational testimonials. 18. For the post of Block Data-cum-Account Assistant under B.P.M.U. the two selected candidates Naresh Chandra, (petitioner No. 21) and Sumit Kumar Yadav did not file their educational testimonials alongwith their application forms. 19. Similarly for the post of Computer Assistant the selected candidate (petitioner No. 17) Babi Sabina’s educational testimonials were never verified. She was awarded 2 marks which through overwriting was made to read as 7. 20. For the post of Staff Nurse under the NPCDCS Programme the selected candidates Mohan Kumar Pathak and Rubi Verma did not file their educational testimonials/documents alongwith their application forms. 21. She was awarded 2 marks which through overwriting was made to read as 7. 20. For the post of Staff Nurse under the NPCDCS Programme the selected candidates Mohan Kumar Pathak and Rubi Verma did not file their educational testimonials/documents alongwith their application forms. 21. For the post of Data Entry Operator, Blood Bank the requisite qualification is Graduation from a recognised University + PGDCA Diploma from a recognised Institution and one year working experience in M.S. Office. The selected candidate for this post Sri Dhiraj Singh Chauhan has done B.E. in Computer Science Diploma certificate of which has been filed but his working experience has been issued from some Ram Ausadhi Bhandar, Sipri Bazar, Jhansi which makes it a suspicious document. 22. For the 6 posts of Rehabilitation Worker under the N.P.H.C.E. Programme the candidates were required to submit the photocopies of their educational testimonials alongwith their application forms. None of the 6 selected candidates have submitted their educational testimonials alongwith their application forms. The names of the 6 candidates are as under: Manoj Kumar Tiwari Naveen Kumar Srivastava Shyam Sunder Deepak Rai Premendra Jitendra Singh 23. In the case of Jitendra Singh his photograph is not attached with his application form and in his application form he has not filled the date or place. The application form is also filed incomplete. 24. For the one post of Staff Nurse under the N.P.H.C.E. Programme the requisite eligibility qualification was G.N.M. Diploma from a recognised Institution + Registration with Medical Faculty, Lucknow and two years of working experience. The candidate selected for this post Smt. Kumkum Devi did not file her two years experience certificate and instead filed only a one year experience certificate which shows that she did not have the requisite qualification for selection. 25. From a perusal of the application forms of the selected candidates it was noticed that large number of candidates had not affixed their photographs alongwith their application forms nor were there any marks in the various testimonials to show that the same were cross checked with the original testimonials and even where the marks were cross checked there was no signature of any authority to that effect to show that the documents have been cross checked with the original testimonials. 26. 26. With regard to selection of Contract Care Taker for the Nutrition Rehabilitation Centre on random checking of the applications and the marks obtained by the candidates it was noticed that there were serious irregularities in the marks given by the Chief Medical Officer, Jalaun when compared with the comparative chart. 27. The candidate at Sl.No. 23, Smt. Priti Soni (petitioner No. 19) was given only 6 marks in the comparative chart whereas the members of the selection committee in their original sheets had given her 8 marks. 28. The candidate at Sl.No. 26, Sri Sunil Kumar Pal was given only 5 marks in the comparative chart whereas the Chief Medical Officer, Jalaun in the original marksheet had given 4 marks. 29. The candidate at Sl.No. 28, Smt. Sunita Devi was given 5 marks in the comparative chart whereas in the original marksheet she was given only 4 marks. 30. Similarly for the post of Contract Staff Nurse the candidate at Sl.No. 11, Yogendra Kumar was given 7 marks by the Additional C.M.O. but in the original marksheet he was given only 4 marks. Thus, it was noticed that the marks given were deliberately increased or decreased through manipulation and overwriting. 31. In the selection for the post of Nutrition Counselor it was noticed that Smt. Sunita Badhauna member of the Selection Committee, had committed overwriting in the marks awarded to the candidates at Sl.Nos. 9, 16, 37 and 39 which brings the selection process under a cloud of suspicion. 32. In the selection for the post of Contract Staff Nurse under the N.P.H.C.E. Programme, Km. Kumkum (petitioner No. 6) has been shown selected having secured 30 marks in the total. She has been given 8 marks by one examiner. In the individual marksheet of the committee members the father’s name of Km.Kumkum has been mentioned as Rajendra Kumar Anuragi whereas in the other sheets the same candidate Km. Kumkum having the same date of birth, her father’s name has been shown as Chhote Lal. By another examiner she has been given 6 marks and in both these marksheets her name has been subsequently added by handwriting. Another examiner has recorded her correct date of birth and father’s name and given her 7 marks but her name has been added subsequently by handwriting. Another examiner has given her 4 marks and her name has also been added subsequently by handwriting. Another examiner has recorded her correct date of birth and father’s name and given her 7 marks but her name has been added subsequently by handwriting. Another examiner has given her 4 marks and her name has also been added subsequently by handwriting. 33. So far as the petitioner No. 7 Manish Kumar Pathak son of Virendra Kumar is concerned, from the original records it is noticed that his working experience which was mentioned as 1 year and 3 months in typed copy has been changed by overwriting to 2 years and 2 months. In the individual marksheet of other examiners, Manish Kumar’s working experience in the typed copy still shows one year and 3 months. 34. So far as the petitioner No. 8, Kamal Kishor is concerned, in one of the marksheets 2 marks has been made to read as 3 marks. 35. So far as Rajendra Singh son of Badam Singh is concerned, he was initially given 2 marks but by overwriting the same has been shown as ‘A’ (Absent). 36. Similarly one Ram Kumari Pal daughter of Laxmi Prasad for the post of Staff Nurse N.P.C.D.C.S. was initially given 5 marks which has been scored out and she has been given ‘A’ (Absent) through overwriting. 37. So far as the petitioner No. 15, Renu Verma is concerned, she was initially given 2 marks which through overwriting has been made to read as 4 marks. 38. In the rejoinder-affidavit it has been stated by the petitioners that in the case of some of the petitioners who were selected there was no use of Whitener or overwriting. The averments of the rejoinder-affidavit are belied by the findings which have been recorded by the Court hereinabove and which are borne out from the original records and overwriting is clearly established. 39. Where the entire selection is tainted with mass irregularities and its cancellation is imperative in such a case giving of opportunity of hearing to the individual selected candidates does not arise. This principle of law was profound by the Supreme Court in The Bihar School Examination Board v. Subhas Chandra Sinha and others, 1970 (1) SCC 648 . “14. Reliance was placed upon Ghanshyam Das Gupta’s case (supra) to which we referred earlier. There the examination results of three candidates were cancelled, and this Court held that they should have received an opportunity of explaining their conduct. “14. Reliance was placed upon Ghanshyam Das Gupta’s case (supra) to which we referred earlier. There the examination results of three candidates were cancelled, and this Court held that they should have received an opportunity of explaining their conduct. It was said that even if the inquiry involved a large number of persons, the Committee should frame proper regulations for the conduct of such inquiries but not deny the opportunity. We do not think that that case has any application. Surely it was not intended that where the examination as a whole was vitiated, say by leakage of papers or by destruction of some of the answer books or by discovery of unfair means practised on a vast scale that an inquiry would be made giving a chance to every one appearing at that examination to have his say? What the Court intended to lay down was that if any particular person was to be proceeded against, he must have a proper chance to defend himself and this did not obviate the necessity of giving an opportunity even though the number of persons proceeded against was large. The Court was then not considering the right of an examining body to cancel its own examination when it was satisfied that the examination was not properly conducted or that in the conduct of the examination the majority of the examinees had not conducted themselves as they should have. To make such decisions depend upon a full-fledged judicial inquiry would hold up the functioning of such autonomous bodies as Universities and School Board. While we do not wish to whittle down the requirements of natural justice and fair play in cases where such requirement may be said to arise, we do not want that this Court should be understood as having stated that an inquiry with a right to representation must always precede in every case, however different. The universities are responsible for their standards and the conduct of examinations. The. essence of the examinations is that the worth of every person is appraised without any assistance from an outside source. If at a centre the whole body of students receive assistance and manage to secure success in the neighbourhood of 100% when others at other centres are successful only at an average of 50%, it is obvious that the university or the Board must do something in the matter. If at a centre the whole body of students receive assistance and manage to secure success in the neighbourhood of 100% when others at other centres are successful only at an average of 50%, it is obvious that the university or the Board must do something in the matter. It cannot hold a detailed quasi-judicial inquiry with a right to its alumni to plead and lead evidence etc. before the results are withheld or the examinations cancelled. If there is sufficient material on which it can be demonstrated that the university was right in its conclusion that the examinations ought to be cancelled then academic standards require that the university’s appreciation of the problem must be respected. It would not do for the Court to say that he should have examined all the candidates or even their representatives with - a view to ascertaining whether they had received assistance or not. To do this would encourage indiscipline if not also perjury.” 40. On the question of giving an opportunity of hearing to the candidates of select list the Supreme Court in Union Territory of Chandigarh v. Dilbagh Singh and others, (1993) 1 SCC 154 , in paras 8 and 11 thereof has held as under : “9.Coming to the contentions of the learned counsel for respondents (selectees in the cancelled select list) that the Chandigarh Administartion when had found no direct evidence which could establish charges of corruption levelled against the members of the Selection Board in the matter of preparation of select list of conductors for appointments as conductors in its CTU, it should not have made an order cancelling the select list, all that could be said is, that failure on the part of complainants to establish charges of corruption levelled against the members of the Selection Board could not have saved the select list, if it was otherwise found to be dubious. The select list, which was cancelled by the Chandigarh Administration was found by it to have been prepared in unfair and injudicious manner, in that the interview marks purported to have been awarded by the members of the Selection Board for the performance of candidates at their interview were either inflated to push up the candidates who had got poor marks for their educational qualifications or deflated to pull down the candidates who had got high marks for their educational qualifications. That select list was also found to have been prepared without adopting common eligibility criteria, for all candidates. When the said reasons formed the basis for the Chandigarh Administration to cancel the select list of the Selection Board, the fact that charges of corruption levelled against the members to the Selection Board in the preparation of that select list had not been established by direct evidence produced in that regard, can make no difference.” 12. If we have regard to the above enunciation that a candidate who finds a place in the select list as a candidate selected for appointment to a civil post, does not acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed in such posting the absence of any specific Rule entitling him for such appointment and he could be aggrieved by his non-appointment only when the Administration does so either arbitrarily or for no bona fide reasons, it follows as a necessary concomitant that such candidate even if has a legitimate expectation of being appointed in such posts due to his name finding a place in the select list of candidates, cannot claim to have a right to be heard before such select list is cancelled for bona fide and valid reasons and not arbitrarily: In the instant case, when the Chandigarh Administration which received the complaints about the unfair and injudicious manner in which select list of candidates for appointment as conductors in CTU was prepared by the Selection Board constituted for the purpose, found those complaints to be well founded on an enquiry got made in that regard, we are unable to find that the Chandigarh Administration had acted either arbitrarily or without bona fide and valid reasons in cancelling such dubious select list. Hence, the contentions of the learned counsel for the respondents as to the sustainability of the judgment of CAT under appeal on the ground of non-affording of an opportunity of hearing to the respondents (candidates in the select list) is a misconceived one and is consequently rejected.” 41. In Gurdeep Singh v. State of J. & K. and others, 1995 Supp (1) SCC 188, the Supreme Court has held as under : “12. What remains to be considered is whether the selection of respondent No. 6 should be quashed. In Gurdeep Singh v. State of J. & K. and others, 1995 Supp (1) SCC 188, the Supreme Court has held as under : “12. What remains to be considered is whether the selection of respondent No. 6 should be quashed. We are afraid, unduly lenient view of the Courts on the basis of human consideration in regard to such excesses on the part of the authorities, has served to create an impression that even where an advantage is secured by stratagem and trickery, it could be rationalised in Courts of law. Courts do and should take human and sympathetic view of matters. That is the very essence of justice. But considerations of judicial policy also dictate that a tendency of this kind where advantage gained by illegal means is permitted to be retained will jeopardise the purity of selection process itself; engender cynical disrespect towards the judicial process and in the last analyses embolden errant authorities and candidates into a sense of complacency and impunity that gains achieved by such wrongs could be retained by an appeal to the sympathy of the Court. Such instances reduce the jurisdiction and discretion of Courts into private benevolence. This tendency should be stopped. The selection of respondent No. 6 in the sports category was, on the material placed before us, thoroughly unjustified. He was not eligible in the sports category. He would not be entitled on the basis of his marks, to a seat in general merit category. Attribution of eligibility long after the selection process was over, in our opinion, is misuse of power. While we have sympathy for the predicament of respondent No. 6, it should not lose sight of the fact that the situation is the result of his own making. We think in order to uphold the purity of academic processes, we should quash the selection and admission of respondent No. 6. We do so though, however, reluctantly.” 42. In Biswa Ranjan Sahoo and others v. Sushanta Kumar Dinda and others, (1996) 5 SCC 365 , the Supreme Court has held that in a case of mass malpractice notice to selected candidates and opportunity of hearing is not required. The judgment being reproduced in its entirety and reads as under : “1. Leave granted. 2. These appeals by special leave arise from the order of Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench made on 10.10.1994 and 20.3. The judgment being reproduced in its entirety and reads as under : “1. Leave granted. 2. These appeals by special leave arise from the order of Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench made on 10.10.1994 and 20.3. 1996 in O.A.No. 137of 1993 and Review Application No. 7 of 1995 respectively. The orders disclose the alarming state of affairs regarding lack of integrity and sincerity in the selection process, which is expected to assess merit and recommend for appointment of competent and meritorious persons according to the list prepared by the competent Selection Board. Reverse is the result shown in the process of selection. Pursuant to the advertisement No. 6 of 1992 for filling up of six posts of Chargemen, ‘B’ Grade in Mechanical Electrical Division, the fake selection process appears to have been gone by and some persons came to be appointed including the petitioners. When the selection was questioned, the Tribunal had called for the record and on the perusal of the record, noted as under: “The perusal of the Answer Book of the candidates with Roll No. 001078 (Umakanta Panigrahi) shows that though at Sl.No. 3, in the first page of the answer book, his marks were shown as ‘00’ it was change to ‘20’. At Serial Number 11, there has been correction of the original marks to 25, the original marks appearing to be 20. This is how the total was brought to 95. In second page of the answer book though the mark given for Question No. 11 B were 10, later 5 has been added by someone to make it 15. In page No. 4, after the answer 1/8 written by the candidate, there could be seen some alternation to 0.8 by someone. The facing page or the Answer Book of the of candidate 001235 (Sri Biswa Ranjan Sahoo) show over writing at three places. At Sl. No. 2, original marks 16 appears to have been changed to 18 and total 91 appears to have been changed to 94. It is not possible to mark out how and why answer book 001567 of candidate Rajani Kanta Guru was evaluated by different examiner and marks noted in pencil as also his signature as apparently initials on this answer book are totally different from the initials of the other examiner. It is not possible to mark out how and why answer book 001567 of candidate Rajani Kanta Guru was evaluated by different examiner and marks noted in pencil as also his signature as apparently initials on this answer book are totally different from the initials of the other examiner. There is practically no explanation coming forth as to how and why this examiner was different from this paper alone. We have perused the original tabulation which reveals that the marks obtained by the petitioner in the interview were altered and then total made of the marks obtained in the written test as well as the interview. Even with a naked eye, it appears that the marks obtained by the petitioner were originally 24 and the same reduced to 22 by subsequent correction and totally with this correction total was also brought down to 117 from 119." 3. A perusal thereof would indicate the enormity of mal practices in the selection process. The question, therefore, is: whether the principle of natural justice is required to be followed by issuing notice to the selected persons and hearing them? It is true, as contended by Mr. Santosh Hedge, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, that in the case of selection of an individual if his selection is not found correct in accordance with law, necessarily, a notice is required to be issued and opportunity be given. In a case like mass mal-practice as noted by the Tribunal, as extracted hereinbefore, the question emerges: whether the notice was required to be issued to the persons affected and whether they needed to be heard? Nothing would become fruitful by issuance of notice. Fabrication would obviously either be not known or no one would come forward to bear the brunt. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal was right in not issuing notice to the persons who are said to have been selected and given selection and appointment. The procedures adopted are in flagrant breach of the rules offending Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 4. It is needless to mention that the General Manager of the Railways should personally conduct the enquiry and find the persons who are responsible for this mal-practice and take appropriate disciplinary action against those persons and submit the result of the report of the action to this Court expeditiously. The appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs”. 43. 4. It is needless to mention that the General Manager of the Railways should personally conduct the enquiry and find the persons who are responsible for this mal-practice and take appropriate disciplinary action against those persons and submit the result of the report of the action to this Court expeditiously. The appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs”. 43. In Dilip Kumar Goswami and others v. Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad and others, 2001(3) ESC 939 (All), the Division Bench of this Court in para-7 thereof has held as under : “7. The decision to cancel an examination is an administrative decision and there is very little scope of judicial review of the same unless it is wholly arbitrary. In the present case, it cannot be said that the decision of the Railway Board was arbitrary, rather it was based on an inquiry by the Chairman who found irregularities in the same. No doubt the Chairman of the Railway Recruitment Board has given a different opinion in one of his affidavits in another petition, but this Court cannot in writ Jurisdiction weigh the evidence and come to a different conclusion. The scope of Judicial review has been considered at length by the Supreme Court in Tata Cellular v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 11 . As held in that decision, it is not for the Court to consider whether a policy or decision is fair. The Court is only concerned with the manner in which the decision has been taken. The Court does not sit as a Court of appeal to review the administrative decision, and hence the scope of interference under Article 226 of the Constitution in such matters is limited. In Pramod Kumar Rai v. L.I.C., 2000 (1) ESC 389 (All), this Court dismissed a similar petition, relying on its own decision In Union of India v. Akchhay Kumar Singh, 1999 (4) AWC 3564 .” 44. In Union of India and others v. O. Chakradhar, (2002) 3 SCC 146 , has held as under : Paras 8 and 12 read as under : “8. in our view the nature and the extent of illegalities and irregularities committed in conducting a selection will have to be scrutinized in each case so as to come to a conclusion about future course of action to be adopted in the matter. in our view the nature and the extent of illegalities and irregularities committed in conducting a selection will have to be scrutinized in each case so as to come to a conclusion about future course of action to be adopted in the matter. If the mischief played is no widespread and all pervasive, affecting the result, so as to make it difficult to pick out the persons who have been unlawfully benefited or wrongfully deprived of their selection, in such cases it will neither be possible nor necessary to issue individual show-cause notices to each selectee. The only way out would be to cancel the whole selection. Motive behind the irregularities committed also has its relevance. 12. As per the report of the CBI whole selection smacks of mala fide and arbitrariness. All norms are said to have been violated with impunity at each stage viz. right from the stage of entertaining applications, with answer-sheets while in the custody of Chairman, in holding typing test, in interview and in the end while preparing final result. In such circumstances it may not be possible to pick out or choose any few persons in respect of whom alone the selection could be cancelled and their services in pursuance thereof could be terminated. The illegality and irregularity are so inter-mixed with the whole process of the selection that it becomes impossible to sort out right from the wrong or vice versa. The result of such a selection cannot be relied or acted upon. It is not a case where a question of misconduct on the part of a candidate is to be gone into but a case where those who conducted the selection have rendered it wholly unacceptable. Guilt of those who have been selected is not the question under consideration but the question is,could such selection be acted upon in the matter of public employment? Guilt of those who have been selected is not the question under consideration but the question is,could such selection be acted upon in the matter of public employment? We are therefore of the view that it is not one of those cases where it may have been possible to issue any individual notice of misconduct to each selectee and seek his explanation in regard to the large scale, widespread and all-pervasive illegalities and irregularities committed by those who conducted the selection which may of course possibly be for the benefit of those who have been selected but there may be a few who may have deserved selection otherwise but it is difficult to separate the cases of some of the candidates from the rest even if there may be some. The decision in the case of Krishna Yadav applies to the facts of the present case. The Railway Board’s decision to cancel the selection cannot be faulted with. The appeal therefore deserve to be allowed.” 45. The documents on record as well as the original documents relating to the entire selection which have been produced by the respondents show that irregularities have been committed on a mass scale. Not only selected candidates where their marks which were earlier low were enhanced through overwriting but in respect of other candidates also, after awarding them marks they have been marked (A) absent, and in the case of non selected candidates also it is observed that higher marks earlier awarded were reduced through overwriting. In the case of selected candidates it is noticed that in some cases their application forms were incomplete. They did not contain the date or place required to be mentioned. Photocopy of the educational testimonials were not filed alongwith application forms and even if filed there is no signature of the Committee showing that they had been checked and cross checked with the original as there was no signature of any such authority. It was also noticed that in the case of one candidate the requisite two years working experience which in the printed result was mentioned as one year and three months was later altered through overwriting to read as two years and two months to make such candidate eligible for selection. Therefore considering mass scale of irregularities in the selection, in my opinion, the respondents had no option but to cancel the entire selection. Therefore considering mass scale of irregularities in the selection, in my opinion, the respondents had no option but to cancel the entire selection. So far as the petitioners were concerned in each of their cases irregularities were discovered and has been noted hereinabove, therefore, the question of saving such a selection does not arise. It is therefore not open for the petitioners to claim an opportunity of hearing before cancellation of the selection. The irregularities in the selection being wide spread and rampant, the question of giving any show-cause notice to the petitioners before its cancellation does not arise in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court herein above. 46. Learned Single Judge had interfered in the matter where the entire selection was cancelled on grounds of malpractice. The Supreme Court in Union of India and others v. Tarun K. Singh and others, (2003) 11 SCC 768, has held as under: “4. The question for consideration is whether the learned single Judge of Allahabad High Court was justified in interfering with an order of cancellation passed by the competent authority and direct that the process of selection should be completed. Needless to mention that subsequent to the order of cancellation, in view of the allegation of malpractice, the departmental authorities had held an enquiry into the matter and the result of that enquiry revealed gross irregularities and illegalities as referred to in the judgment of the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court. Consequently the process of selection to a public office, which stands vitiated by adoption of large scale malpractice, cannot be permitted to be sustained by a Court of law. That apart, an individual applicant for any particular post does not get a right to be enforced by a Mandamus unless and until he is selected in the process of selection and gets the letter of appointment. In the case in hand, much before the so-called list of selection was approved by the Railway Board, the order of cancellation had emanated on the basis of complaints received from so many quarters. In the case in hand, much before the so-called list of selection was approved by the Railway Board, the order of cancellation had emanated on the basis of complaints received from so many quarters. In view of the subsequent findings of the enquiry committee which has gone into the matter, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the learned single Judge of Allahabad High Court was wholly in error in issuing the direction in question and, therefore, the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court was fully justified in interfering with the said order of learned single Judge of Allahabad High Court. The Division Bench of Calcutta High Court committed error in following the judgment of learned SingleJjudge of Allahabad High Court. The judgment of Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court is set aside and the judgment of Division Bench of Allahabad High Court is upheld. In the circumstances, we allow the Union’s appeals and dismiss the appeals filed on behalf of the individual candidates. The appeals are disposed of accordingly. Any other question of law remains open.” 47. In Arvind Kumar Pipal and others v. Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P. Lucknow and others, 2004(1) ESC 444 (All), the Division Bench of this Court while upholding the cancellation of entire selection of Class-IV employees has held as under : Paras-12,13 and 14 read as under: “12. The judgment of Basudeo Tiwary’s case (supra), relied by learned counsel for the appellant was also a case of an individual lecturer whose appointment was sought to be cancelled on allegation that Syndicate was not competent to appoint him at the relevant time. The above case is not applicable in the facts of the present case where serious allegation regarding the entire selection process has been made. The case of Shrawan Kumar Jha (supra), was a case on its own facts, The Apex Court specifically said in that judgment that “in the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the view that the appellants should have been given an opportunity of hearing before cancelling their appointments”. The Division Bench judgment of this Court in Vishwamitra Yadav’s case (supra) was a case of cancellation of promotion of an individual who was working as Play Organizer in Observation Home at Basti and was promoted vide order dated 28th June, 1994. The said case is not applicable in the present case. The Division Bench judgment of this Court in Vishwamitra Yadav’s case (supra) was a case of cancellation of promotion of an individual who was working as Play Organizer in Observation Home at Basti and was promoted vide order dated 28th June, 1994. The said case is not applicable in the present case. The case of Muneshwar Dayal (supra), decided by learned single Judge of this Court was also a case of Class IV employee who was regularised by order dated 25th October, 1994 but subsequently by order dated 2nd January, 1996 his services were terminated. The said case is also not attracted in the facts of the present case. In Jawed Ahmad’s case (supra) a learned Judge of this Court had held that petitioners were selected for appointment on the post in question after following the procedure prescribed under Rules, they were lawfully appointed on the post and were discharging their duties and in that background of the abovesaid observations, this Court held that cancellation of the appointment without notice was bad. Sanjeev Kumar’s case (supra) is again a judgment by learned single Judge of this Court. In the aforesaid case services of the petitioners were terminated ‘as no longer required’. The above case was not a case of cancellation of entire selection process on any ground. 13. The order dated 3rd January, 2003 which was impugned in the writ petition gives detail reasons for cancelling the entire selection. The order notices that although 3559 applications were received but only 2209 candidates were called and there was no decision of the selection committed for rejecting the applications of 1350 candidates. The order further records that in the board sheet marks were not given to 66 candidates by the Chairman/appointing authority whereas other members of the Selection Committee gave marks to them. There was difference of marks with regard to several candidates. The board sheet with regard to several candidates was also changed. The order records that no merit list after compiling the marks of all the candidates secured in the interview was prepared and there are no signatures of the members of selection committee. The impugned order further notes that a review selection committee was constituted on 2nd January, 2003 and the selection committee after reviewing the selection process and considering all relevant facts recommended for cancellation of entire selection process and appointment. The impugned order further notes that a review selection committee was constituted on 2nd January, 2003 and the selection committee after reviewing the selection process and considering all relevant facts recommended for cancellation of entire selection process and appointment. The selection committee which has earlier recommended the appointment having itself taken a decision to cancel the appointment after reconsidering the entire fact, it is clearly established that entire selection process was vitiated. The irregularities and illegalities committed in the selection process pertain to the entire selection process and were not confined to any individual candidate. In view of the above facts, in the present case, the decision of the respondents to cancel the appointments in pursuance of illegal and irregular selection process cannot be termed to be as arbitrary based on no valid reasons. No grounds have been made out to interfere with the decision of the competent authority to cancel all the appointments in exercise of jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The learned single Judge rightly refused to interfere with the impugned order. 14. In above view of the matter, we are satisfied that in facts of the present case, individual notice was not required to be given to all the selected candidates and the decision of the authority cancelling all the appointments was based on valid reasons. The learned single Judge has rightly refused to interfere with the decision of authorities to cancel all the appointments.” 48. Large scale irregularities and mass malpractices in the selection in question having been established from the documents on record and the documents in original, produced by the respondnets, the allegations of malafides, merely because complaints against the selection were made by an M P and an MLA, are wholly frivoulus and have no legs to stand and are rejected. 49. Therefore on a conspectus of facts and law, I find no illegaltiy or irregularity in the impugned orders. 50. The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to cost. Let the original records be returned to the learned standing counsel. ——————