JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Ajit Singh, J. 1. This intra court appeal is directed against the order dated 10.6.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge of this High Court whereby he has dismissed appellants’ WP(C) No.1887/2016. 2. In the month of December, 2015, an advertisement was published for filling up the vacant posts of Junior Assistant in 54 different provincialized Higher Secondary Schools/High Schools, all situated in District Barpeta. Thereafter, School-wise recruitment was undertaken through an examination held on 13.1.2016. For selection to the posts advertised, written test of 80 marks followed by typing test of 30 marks were prescribed. After the written test was over, large number of complaints were made to the Deputy Commissioner and Inspector of Schools, Barpeta alleging serious malpractices in conducting the examination. The Deputy Commissioner, therefore, vide letter dated 19.1.2016 entrusted Sri Anbamuthan, IAS, Assistant Commissioner to cause an enquiry, who, in turn, constituted a Committee headed by himself and Dr.Kularanjan Deka, Principal DIET and Dr.Prakash Sarma, Principal of M.C.College, Barpeta as Members. The Committee after making an enquiry submitted its report dated 3.2.2016. In the report, the Committee, referring to various anomalies found, recommended cancellation of examination. The relevant extract of the report of Committee reads as under:- “1. In most of the Schools, there is a steep difference in marks secured by the first ranker and the second ranker which is abnormal. 2. Most Schools have submitted inadequate marksheets which do not include the category of a candidate (whether the candidate is General or OBC). In Kayakuchi High School, the OBC candidates have been allowed to appear without furnishing the caste certificates. 3. Also, there are instances where the kin of principal of members of the SMDC have appeared in the examination and have got first position in the examination. To cite one instance, in KK Pathak High School, Kalgachia there are only two candidates whose names have been produced in the marksheet and it was found that both of them were wards of the headmaster. Recommendation: Junior Assistants who have been selected through a free and fair process and allotted to the schools can help a long way in improving quality of education in the district. In light of the above anomalies and in public interest, it is recommended that the results of the examination be cancelled as it has not been a fair and free process. In light of the above anomalies and in public interest, it is recommended that the results of the examination be cancelled as it has not been a fair and free process. It is further recommended that any re-examination should be conducted centrally so as to avoid any malpractices by providing for better monitoring for the examination and also to ensure that only deserving candidates are selected on the basis of merit. Sd/- 03.02.2016 Anbamithan MP, IAS, Assistant Commissioner, Barpeta.” 3. A separate report dated 2.2.2016 prepared by Dr. Kularanjan Deka, Member of the Committee is as follows: “Analyzing the Merit List of each individual school reveals that there are gross irregularities in awarding marks. It is also noticeable to note that out of total 80 marks, 50% schools have awarded highest marks like 78, 77, 76,75,72 etc. and the ranges between highest marks to the next highest marks are like 78-57, 77-44,72-52,76-61,72-51,70-45 (comparative scoring of marks attached). Besides these, one school has reported about an abnormal scoring of marks by a candidate and doubted the candidate to get the answer key before commencement of the test. Again another school has submitted merit list having only two candidates. It is also noticeable that both the candidates are the son of that particular headmaster. These facts prove that the test was not conducted properly by the individual schools and as a result numerous complaints have been lodged. In view of these facts stated above, it is better to cancel the test and may be conducted a fresh test centrally by single set of evaluation tools for the well-being of the district. The report also contains the comparative statement showing the highest marks and 2nd highest marks and lower marks of individual schools for ready reference.” 4. Likewise the relevant extract of the report submitted by another member of the Committee, Dr. Prakash Sarma, Principal of the MC College, Barpeta reads as under:- “1. In an award of marks it appears that there is some kind of disparity in most of the schools. It looks that some particular candidates are favoured by awarding them high marks in comparison to others. 2. It is doubtful whether Supervising Officer was present throughout the examination period inside the venue. Rule stipulates that he should be present there and sign at least on the envelop containing the marksheets. It looks that some particular candidates are favoured by awarding them high marks in comparison to others. 2. It is doubtful whether Supervising Officer was present throughout the examination period inside the venue. Rule stipulates that he should be present there and sign at least on the envelop containing the marksheets. But there is no signature of the Supervising Officer was visible on the cover of the envelop. 3. So far as Kayakuchi High School is concerned the vacancy is reserved for OBC. The OBC candidates were allowed to appear in the written test without OBC certificates. 4. Final marksheets of the candidates appeared must contain the signature of the Principal/Headmaster of the school and the Chairman/Member of SMC. But most of the marksheets suspiciously do not contain the signature of the Chairman/Member of SMC. 5. The marksheets provided by Abbas Ali Choudhury is not in proper order. It is signed by the Principal but the seal of the Principal is not there. 6. The Headmaster of the JRP Girls’ High School, Barpeta himself expresses doubt over the very high marks obtained by the candidates. In his remark in the marksheet he writes – “Abnormally correct answer script, linked to answer key in advance suspended. Based on the above mentioned findings, I recommend that the concerned examination should be cancelled and new process should be initiated so that the selection can be made on the basis of merit.” 5. Surprisingly, the Director of Secondary Education, despite unanimous recommendation of the committee members for canceling the examination, vide his communication dated 9.2.2016, ordered for holding of re-examination only in respect to three schools, namely, Kayakuch High School, JRP Girls High School and KK Pathak High School, Kalgachia. But the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Education Department vide order dated 24.2.2016 accepted the recommendation of the Deputy Commissioner based on the enquiry report for cancellation of examination. In the order, the Secretary also mentioned the decision of the State Government for holding re-examination in all the schools in strict supervision of the Deputy Commissioner. 6. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order dated 24.2.2016, the appellants filed WP(C) No.1887/2016 on the ground that in the absence of any finding of malpractices in the examination held in their schools, the entire examination should not have been cancelled. 6. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order dated 24.2.2016, the appellants filed WP(C) No.1887/2016 on the ground that in the absence of any finding of malpractices in the examination held in their schools, the entire examination should not have been cancelled. It was also argued that the State Government ought to have separated ‘good’ from the ‘bad process’ more particularly when no negative report after enquiry was given in respect of their schools. The learned Single Judge took note of the enquiry reports of Dr. Kula Ranjan Deka and Dr. Prakash Sarma as well as of the Committee and held that the decision of canceling the examination was fully justified in public interest. It is in this background, the appellants have filed the present appeal. 7. The learned senior counsel for the appellants reiterated the arguments advanced before the learned Single Judge. In addition, he relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Joginder Pal vs. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 644 . In reply, the respective counsel for the respondents defended the decision of re-examination of the State Government and also the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. 8. After hearing the learned senior counsel for the appellants and the learned Government counsel of the State we are of the considered view that the appeal has no merit and deserves to be dismissed. As seen above, the Committee comprising of members of impeccable integrity in its report has found glaring irregularities and anomalies in the examination of almost all the schools and therefore, it recommended for the cancellation of such examination. Also having regard to the serious nature of different anomalies found in most of the schools, it is not possible to separate chaff from the grain to save examination held in appellants’ schools. It is also not the case of the appellants that the Enquiry Committee was guided by any irrelevant or extraneous consideration in recommending cancellation of the selection process. Even the merit lists prepared by the majority of schools reveal gross irregularities in awarding of marks. From the perusal of order dated 9.2.2016 of the Director of Secondary Education it appears that he was more interested in filling up the vacancies before 31.3.2016 to avoid lapse of administrative approval for recruitment, as to obtain fresh approval would take long time and the cancellation of examination may also give rise to legal complicacy. From the perusal of order dated 9.2.2016 of the Director of Secondary Education it appears that he was more interested in filling up the vacancies before 31.3.2016 to avoid lapse of administrative approval for recruitment, as to obtain fresh approval would take long time and the cancellation of examination may also give rise to legal complicacy. He, therefore, ordered for cancellation of examination of only three schools with which the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Education Department rightly did not agree in larger public interest. The recruitment to government vacancies must be through a competitive and transparent process which must also inspire the confidence of people and this is lacking in the case at hand. We are, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the decision of the State Government regarding re-examination as well as with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. 9. In the case of Joginder Pal (supra), the Supreme Court dealt with the cancellation of selection process and the mass termination of large number of officers who were appointed pursuant to unfair selection process, despite the fact that the Enquiry Committee could achieve the task of segregating tainted candidates from the innocent ones. Such is not the position in the present case as none of the appellants have been appointed and they were merely selected. Also the Supreme Court in the same decision has clearly held that different yardsticks must be applied while terminating the services of candidates who had already been appointed and had completed few years of service and those who were merely selected and had not been appointed because the latter have no right to be appointed only on the ground of selection. The decision, therefore, does not help the appellants. 10. For these reasons, we find no good ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.