JUDGMENT : Dr. S.N. Pathak, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Since facts in all these writ petitions are same and similar, they are disposed of with a common order. 3. The petitioners in all the three writ petitions have approached this Court with a common prayer for quashing the order issued on behalf of IG-cum-Chief Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, South Eastern, Railway, Kolkata, as contained in letter dated 8.12.2011, whereby the Chief Security Commissioner, RPF, South Eastern Railway, Kolkata has cancelled the promotion selection test held from 18.1.2011 to 21.1.2011 and from 16.2.2011 to 18.2.2011 for promotion to the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector, Railway Protection Force and also cancelled the earlier notification dated 8.9.2010 and 16.10.2011 and further, decided to issue fresh notification for holding the selection test for promotion after assessing the fresh vacancies also arising during the intervening period by obtaining necessary certificate from the Dy. Chief Personnel Officer (RP), Kolkata. Further prayer has been made for a direction upon the respondents to complete the process of present selection by issuing the order of promotion to the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector, RPF for which the selection was held at Zonal Training Institute, Kharagpur. Further prayer has also been made for a direction upon the respondent-authorities to stay the operation of the order dated 8.12.2011. Petitioners have also prayed for quashing fresh notification dated 2.1.2012 (Annexure-13) issued by respondent no. 14 whereby a fresh willingness by 7.2.2012 were called for from the Head Constables and Constables, who have completed 10 years of service on the date of the notification dated 2.1.2012. 4. The factual exposition as has been delineated in the writ petitions is that petitioners were appointed in this Railway Protection Force about 11 to 12 years back and some of them have also been promoted to the post of Head Constables by virtue of their selection and promotion. The Railway Protection Force (for short "RPF") is governed by RPF Act, Rules and Regulations as well as governed by the general and special laws of the land in India and according to those, there are provision in Rules 70 to 72 of RPF Rules, 1987 for promotion from the rank of Constable to Head Constable and further to the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector, Sub-Inspector and Inspector in RPF. It is further submitted that as per RPF Promotion Rules, the Constable and Head Constable, who have completed 10 years of minimum service in the force are entitled and eligible to apply for promotion to the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector on inviting applications for the vacancies under Rule 72 of RPF Rules, 1987. A duty has been casted on the Superior Officers of the Force to find out the vacancies of the posts in all categories of rank and to invite applications every year to fill up the vacancies by promotion and in view of said Rule, selection should be held for promotion. However, this desire of the Government is not being fulfilled due to negligence on the part of the Superior Officers of the Force and hence, the members of RPF suffers from the benefits of timely promotion in spite of meritorious service rendered by them to RPF. 5. It is further submitted that the Railway Administration of the South Eastern Railway decided to hold a selection test for promotion to the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector of RPF in the scale of Rs. 5200-20200/- with Grade Pay of Rs. 2,800/- and to fill up the vacancies of 40 Assistant Sub-Inspector of RPF. Thereafter, the respondents vide notification dated 16.11.2010 invited application forms from the eligible Constables & Head Constables of RPF who have completed minimum 10 years of service on the day of the said notification. In pursuance to the said. notification, the petitioners made their willingness for selection and promotion to the rank of ASI through the Divisional Security Commissioners and through their controlling officers-of the Railway i.e. through proper channel and the applications of the eligible Constables & Head Constables were forwarded to the Office of Chief Security Commissioner, RPF. S.E. Railway, Kolkata. Thereafter, a Departmental Promotion Committee was constituted by the Dy. Chief Security Commissioner, RPF South Eastern Railway, Garden Reach, Kolkata, who was authorized by the provision of Rule 70.5 of RPF Rules, 1987 to constitute the Committee. To conduct the selection test for promotion to the rank of ASI under Rule 72, a letter dated 17.1.2011 was issued by the IG-cum-Chief Security Commissioner, S.E. Railway, Kolkata, by which the date for written examination was fixed for 18.1.2011 and Outdoor Test and Viva Voce test was fixed to be held from 19.1.2011 and 20.1.2011 at RPF Zonal Training Institute, S.E. Railway, Kharagpur. In the selection process 137 candidates were appeared for written test of 40 marks on 18.1.2011 and further for Outdoor Test of 20 marks on 19.1.2011 and 20.1.2011 and the candidates who have obtained at least 36 marks i.e. 60% were declared successful. Total 24 candidates including the petitioners were declared successful in the examination. Thereafter, Viva Voce Test of 20 marks were conducted by the Departmental Promotion Committee and then the candidates were spared back for their own place of posting in South Eastern Railway for resuming their duty. On 20.1.2011, a letter was issued for fixing the further date from 16.2.2011 to 18.2.2011 for the candidates who could not appear in the main examination held from 18.1.2011 to 20.1.2011. As requested, the date for main examination has been fixed from 16.2.2011 to 18.2.2011 but no one became successful in the said examination. 6. Thereafter, the DPC finalized the selected list and submitted the same to the Office of IG-cum-Chief Security Commissioner, Kolkata for approval by Dy. Chief Security Commissioner, RPF who invited the applications and constituted the Board for selection. The petitioners were waiting for publication of their selection list or panel with much anxieties and agony but the delay started taking place in the order of promotion. When the result was not published for a long span of period, the petitioners represented before their Controlling Officers at Ranchi, Charkadharpur, Bokaro and other places of their posting and the office of the Chief Security Commissioner, Kolkata but no replies have been given to their said representations. When no heed was paid to their said representations, the petitioners sought information through their counsel vide application dated 5.8.2011 under RTI from the Public Information Officer, S.E. Railway, Kolkata. The Public Information Officer vide its letter dated 22.9.2011, asked from the petitioners to deposit a sum of Rs. 1.00 lakh for providing the said information. Against the said letter, petitioners Advocate wrote letter to the Chief Public Information Officer but the same also remained un-replied. When the petitioners were waiting for their results, all of a sudden a letter dated 8.12.2011 was issued by the Dy. 1.00 lakh for providing the said information. Against the said letter, petitioners Advocate wrote letter to the Chief Public Information Officer but the same also remained un-replied. When the petitioners were waiting for their results, all of a sudden a letter dated 8.12.2011 was issued by the Dy. Chief Security Commissioner, RPF, S.E. Railway, Kolkata stating therein that I.G.-cum-Chief Security Commissioner, RPF, S.E. Railways has cancelled the selection test for promotion to the Rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector due to administrative reasons and also decided that a fresh notification for holding selection process for promotion will be issued after assessing the additional vacancies arising during the intervening period with necessary certification from the Dy. Chief Personnel Officer (RP), Garden Reach arid then fresh willingness will be obtained from the eligible staff. Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 8.12.2011, the petitioners represented before the respondent-authorities vide their representation dated 16.12.2011 for redressal of their grievances but to no avail. Hence, the petitioners have knocked the door of this Court. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners on being selected in the competitive examination for promotion are entitled to be promoted on the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector, RPF under Rule 72 of RPF Rules, 1987. The respondent-authorities are duty bond to accept or approve and communicate the selection list of promotion prepared and submitted by the Departmental Promotion Committee comprising of two Senior Security Commissioners and one Assistant Security Commissioner as Chairman and members of the DPC. Learned counsel further submits that cancellation of the examination held from 18.1.2011 to 20.1.2011 and from 16.2.2011 to 18.2.2011, as main and supplementary examination at Zonal Training Institute, Kharagpur along with cancellation of notification dated 8.9.2010 and 16.11.2010 without assigning any valid reason are mala fide, arbitrary, illegal and in violation of principles of natural justice. The decision of respondent-authorities for inviting fresh applications from the successful and unsuccessful candidates by amalgamating the old and fresh vacancies is illegal, unjustified and in violation of Rule, Law and procedure of selection. The respondents are not at liberty to change the rule of selection in the midst of process of promotion when the selected list were made and submitted for approval and promotion. The respondents are not at liberty to change the rule of selection in the midst of process of promotion when the selected list were made and submitted for approval and promotion. Such unreasonable, arbitrary and mala fide acts and actions of the respondent-authorities are in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution Learned counsel further submits that the selection was made on merit as per Rule and Law and hence, the panel or list of selected candidates submitted by Departmental Promotion Committee was to be accepted or approved by the rational and bona fide decision of the authorities concerned but the same was not done in these cases. The innocent petitioners should not suffer due to the faults of others as the petitioners have their bona fide claim for being selected against the irrational and unjust reason of cancellation. Lastly, learned counsel submits that even for the administrative reasons, as stated in the impugned order, the selected innocent petitioners should not be panelized in the matter of promotion. 8. Per contra counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents vehemently opposes the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that on receipt of a complaint of repeated irregularities in holding the promotion test, the matter was forwarded by the Enforcement Director, Security, Railway Board to Chief Security Commissioner (CSC), RPF, S.E. Railway vide his letter dated 14.2.2011 for necessary action. The matter was then entrusted to the internal Vigilance Group of RPF to probe into the same. The Internal Vigilance Group (IVG) of RPF, found after enquiry, several procedural irregularities and lapses and under the circumstances so arisen, the matter was referred to Railway Board soliciting guidelines. It was then advised by the Railway Board to the Chief Security Commissioner, S.E. Railway to take final decision at his level. Thereafter, in view of the detailed guidelines issued by the D.G., RPF, Railway Board, who is the supreme commander of RPF and in exercise of the powers conferred upon by Rule 70.7(b) of RPF Rules, 1987, the IG-cum-CSC, RPF, S.E. Railway, upon consideration of the entire state of affairs and upon going through the reports submitted, cancelled the selection test in. question in the interest of administration without publishing any panel for promotion. question in the interest of administration without publishing any panel for promotion. After cancellation of the entire selection process, a further notification for holding a fresh selection test for filling-up 41 vacancies of Assistant Sub-Inspector, RPF was issued under the signature of Additional CSC/RPF/S.E. Railway vide IG-cum-CSC (RPF)/S.E. Railway's office letter dated 2.2.2012 and accordingly, the willing eligible candidates nave submitted their applications in the forthcoming selection test. Hence, the present writ petition filed by the aggrieved petitioners before this Hon'ble Court, praying for quashing the cancellation order dated 8.12.2011, issued on behalf of the IG-cum-CSC/RPF/S.E. Railway (Annexure-10) to the writ petition, arid also for a direction for issuance of promotion order as per selected panel and to stay the effect of fresh notification for holding fresh selection test, is not maintainable either in law or on facts. 9. In reply to the statements made in the writ applications, learned counsel submits that in the instant cases, no final select list (panel) of the candidates was published on the basis of selection in question as the same was found to be vitiated due to procedural irregularities/lapses on the part of the OPC in conducting the said selection. Hence, the petitioners cannot claim themselves as selected candidates for promotion. Before cancellation of the selection in question, clarifications were called for from the OPC about procedural irregularities as well as lapses in conducting the selection, which was revealed on a preliminary enquiry on a complaint made in this regard and in reply, the members of the OPC admitted those procedural irregularities as pointed out by the Inspector of the Internal Vigilance Group, being the enquiry officer and as such, in exercise of the powers conferred under Rule 70.7(b) of the RPF Rules, 1987, the IG-cum-CSC/RPF/S.E. Railway upon consideration of the entire state of affairs, cancelled the selection test in question due to administrative reasons in the interest of all the candidates. Hence, the impugned order dated 8.12.2011 is fully justified and requires no interference. 10. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the cases of the petitioners need considerations. Hence, the impugned order dated 8.12.2011 is fully justified and requires no interference. 10. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the cases of the petitioners need considerations. The respondents have illegally and arbitrarily rejected the cases of the petitioners, whose names appear in the finalized selected test and were waiting for publication of their select list but the same was not done and instead cancelled the entire examination process and fresh notification for holding fresh selection was issued. The ground for cancellation of the elect list was regarding complaint of repeated irregularities in holding promotion test. The vigilance report also found only procedural irregularities and lapses and on the vigilance report, the Railway Board taking into consideration Rule 70.5 of RPF Rules, 1987, cancelled the selection in question in the interest of administration without publishing any panel for promotion and further a notification for holding fresh selection test for filling up 41 post of Assistant Sub-Inspector in RPF was also issued under the signature of Additional CSC/RPF/S.E. Railway vide IG-cum-CSC (RPF)/S.E. Railway's letter dated 2.2.2012. he reasons assigned for cancellation of the appointment list is not sustainable in the eyes of law nor acceptable to this Court on the following grounds:- (I) Cancellation of selection process was not permissible since there was no justification in law to deny appointment to those selected candidates whose selections were not found to be, in any manner, vitiated for anyone or other reasons. There seems to be no serious grievance of any malpractices as such in the process of written examination-either by the candidates or by those who actually conducted them and hence, there was hardly any justification in law to deny to those selected candidates whose selections were not found to be, in any manner, vitiated for anyone or other reasons. Applying an unilaterally rigid and arbitrary standard to cancel the entirety of the selections despite the firm and positive information, was total disregard of relevancies and allowing to be carried away by irrelevancies, giving a complete go-by to contextual considerations throwing to winds the principle of proportionality in going farther than what was strictly and reasonably required to meet the situation. The Competent Authority completely misdirected itself in taking such an extreme and unreasonable decision of canceling 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. (II) The panel is still alive and has not been cancelled. Once the selection is completed following the legal procedures, the same could not have been cancelled without any valid reason. The impugned order cancelling the selection process was not issued by the Competent Authority as Dy. Chief Security Commissioner is the competent authority under the law. In this case Chief Security Officer has passed the impugned order and as such, the order is without jurisdiction taking into consideration Rule 72 of the RPF Rules. (III) Issuance of fresh notification for holding selection process for promotion after assessing additional vacancies arisen during the intervening period is not at all sustainable in the eyes of law. Additional vacancies arises during the intervening period cannot be amalgamated with the past vacancies meant for selection process for promotion to the rank of ASI, which was already acted upon and as such, the criteria added by the respondents subsequently, i.e. after the selection process is over is not permissible in the eyes of law. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Maharashtra State Road Construction & Ors. vs. Rajendra Bhimrao Mandve & Ors., reported in 2002(1) JCR 301 has held that, "............. rules of the games meaning thereby. that the criteria for selection cannot be altered by the authorities concerned in the middle or after the process of selection has. commenced." The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Union of India & Ors. vs. Rajesh P.U. Puthuvalnikathu & Anr., reported in (2003) 7 SCC 285 [:2003(4) JLJR (SC)229] had clearly held that, ".................. that the criteria for selection cannot be altered by the authorities concerned in the middle or after the process of selection has. commenced." The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Union of India & Ors. vs. Rajesh P.U. Puthuvalnikathu & Anr., reported in (2003) 7 SCC 285 [:2003(4) JLJR (SC)229] had clearly held that, ".................. 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 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 other of 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 anyone or other reasons." The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of East Coast Railway & Anr. vs. Mahadev Appa Rao & Ors., reported in (2010)7 SCC 678 has held that, Recruitment process-examination/selection test-cancellation of-judicial review on the ground of arbitration-held, though a candidate who has passed an examination or whose name appears in the select list does not have indefeasible right to be appointed, yet appointment cannot be denied arbitrarily, nor can selection test be cancelled without giving proper justification-court can give appropriate directions where decision is found to be arbitrary." In the instant case, the decision taken by the respondents was not after due application of mind. Instead they acted mechanically and impulsively and as such, it can be comfortably be held decision of cancellation was an inform decision and as such vitiated. The power exercised by the respondents must be for legitimate purpose and it cannot be the colourable exercise of power. 11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in para-14 of its judgment passed in case of East Coast Railway & Anr. vs. Mahadev Appa Rao & Ors. (supra) has held as under:- "14. The power exercised by the respondents must be for legitimate purpose and it cannot be the colourable exercise of power. 11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in para-14 of its judgment passed in case of East Coast Railway & Anr. vs. Mahadev Appa Rao & Ors. (supra) has held as under:- "14. It is evident from the above that while no candidate acquires an indefeasible right to a post merely because he has appeared in the examination or even found a place in the select list, yet the State does not enjoy an unqualified prerogative to refuse an appointment in an arbitrary fashion or to disregard the merit of the candidates as reflected by the merit list prepared at the end of the selection process. The validity of the State’s decision not to make an appointment is thus a matter which is not beyond judicial review before a competent Writ Court. If any such decision is indeed found to be arbitrary, appropriate directions can be issued in the matter." 12. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts, rules, guidelines, observations and judicial pronouncements, I hereby set aside and quash the order of cancellation dated 8.12.2011 and also letter dated 2.2.2012, whereby a fresh willingness were called for by letter dated 7.2.2012 from the Head Constables and Constables, who have completed 10 years of service on the date of this fresh notification dated 2.1.2012. The respondents are directed to take immediate steps for publication of the select list and for withdrawal of the fresh notification dated 2.2.2012, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 13. Resultantly, the writ petitions stand allowed. All pending I.As. are closed.