JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. Instant case is a classic example, showcasing the crumbling of executive actions, with the winds of rumours and media reports, resulting from lack of confidence, faith and self esteem. 2. The order under challenge is premised essentially rather solely on the edifice of news items published in daily newspaper. The facts surrounding the controversy are set out herein below :- 3. The respondents issued a notification inviting applications for appointment on the post of Forest Guard and Forester in accordance with the provisions of the Rajasthan Forest Subordinate Service Rules, 2015 (hereafter referred to as “the Rules of 2015”). The petitioner applied for appointment on the post of Forester (Vanpal) and appeared in written examination held for such post on 09.01.2016. The petitioner having been declared successful in the said written examination, was called for physical efficiency test and fitness examination vide communication dated 29.01.2016. The petitioner in turn cleared the physical efficiency test also and was, therefore, called for interview, vide communication dated 22.04.2016. The petitioner fared well in the interview, for which his name was included in the select list of Foresters along with two other candidates namely S/Shri Suresh Kumar Garg and Lokesh Kumar Meghwal. An office order dated 2.3.2016 came to be issued, giving out the list of selected candidates, which included petitioner’s name. 4. Despite issuance of the above select list, neither order of appointment was issued, nor the petitioner was asked to join. For considerable time, the petitioner was kept waiting, while all other candidates hailing from other Districts were allowed to join. On enquiries being made, he learnt that though the select list for the post of Forester had been issued on 02.03.2016, the other two candidates namely S/Shri Suresh Kumar Garg and Lokesh Kumar Meghwal have been provided posting in other Districts, while the petitioner, duly selected for the post of Forester had been singled out. The petitioner moved an application under Right to Information Act, 2005, eliciting the requisite information regarding selection and orders of appointment in furtherance of the advertisement dated 16.10.2015. 5. Before the petitioner was provided the desired information, respondent No.4 issued an office order Øekad% ,Q¼ ½dkfeZd@ijh{kk@molam@mÙkj@2015@ dated 14.07.2016 whereby the office order Øekad ,Q¼ ½dkfeZd@molam@2015&16@2765 dated 02.03.2016 – the select list had been cancelled. 6. 5. Before the petitioner was provided the desired information, respondent No.4 issued an office order Øekad% ,Q¼ ½dkfeZd@ijh{kk@molam@mÙkj@2015@ dated 14.07.2016 whereby the office order Øekad ,Q¼ ½dkfeZd@molam@2015&16@2765 dated 02.03.2016 – the select list had been cancelled. 6. The petitioner has invoked extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court, impeaching the aforesaid order dated 14.07.2016, canceling petitioner’s selection made vide office order dated 02.03.2016. Petitioner has raised multiple grounds, including non-observance of principles of natural justice for seeking quashment of the impugned orders. 7. A reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondents pointing out that after the selection process was over and select list was published, a news item was published in a Daily Newspaper “Dainik Bhaskar” alleging favoritism in the aforesaid appointments, for which the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Jaipur, appointed Shri D.N. Pandy, Addl. Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (Camp Jaipur) as enquiry officer in the matter, vide order dated 5.3.2016 and sought his report in this regard. 8. The said enquiry officer submitted his report dated 11.03.2016, clearly giving a finding that the process has not been found contaminated. Yet, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Jaipur vide order dated 16.03.2016 kept the process of appointment of petitioner and other two persons in abeyance, while deciding to lodge an FIR/criminal complaint for further investigation. 9. It is a matter of record that the Superintendent of Police, Udaipur vide his letter dated 11.04.2016 addressed to the respondents, conveyed that there is nothing to substantiate the allegations leveled; and that the FIR cannot be registered only for the sake of removal or redressal of the doubts. 10. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, asked the Chief Conservator of Forest to send his comments/report. The Chief Conservator of Forest, Udaipur (respondent No.3) could also not unearth any evidence of corrupt practice, except reporting that all the three persons selected for the post of Forester are close relatives/dependents of the employees working in Udaipur Zone of Forest Department, though he added that it cannot be said with certainty that there was no irregularity in the selection process. 11. In the meanwhile, instead of ascertaining the correct factual position or probing into the matter, the Deputy Secretary to the Government – Forest Department, directed the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Jaipur to cancel the selection in question. 11. In the meanwhile, instead of ascertaining the correct factual position or probing into the matter, the Deputy Secretary to the Government – Forest Department, directed the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Jaipur to cancel the selection in question. As a reflex action, the Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (Administration) sent a letter No.6535 dated 11.07.2016 to the Chief Conservator of Forest, Udaipur to cancel the selection in question and take requisite steps. As a reflex action, the Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (Administration) sent a letter No.6535 dated 11.07.2016 to the Chief Conservator of Forest, Udaipur to cancel the selection in question and take requisite steps. It will not be out of place to reproduce the said letter No.6535 dated 11.07.2016, which reads thus :- dk;kZy; iz/kku eq[; ou laj{kd jktLFkku t;iqj Øekad ,Q 15 ¼1½ 2015@dkfeZd&HkrhZ@izeqola@6535 fnukad 11@7@16 fufeRr] eq[; ou laj{kd] mn;iqjA fo"k; % ouiky ijh{kk 2015&16 ¼ukWu Vh-,l-ih-½ ds rhuksa inksa ij gqbZ HkrhZ ds laca/k esa jkT; ds izeq[k v[kckj nSfud HkkLdj esa fnukad 05-03-2016 dks Þouiky HkrhZ ds rhuksa in viuksa ls gh Hkj fy;sß izdkf'kr lekpkj ds laca/k esa izLrqr tkap fjiksVZ ds Øe esaA egksn;] mijksDr fo"k;kUrxZr ys[k gS fd ouiky ijh{kk 2015&16 ¼ukWu Vh-,l-ih- ½ ds rhuksa inksa ij gqbZ HkrhZ ds laca/k esa jkT; ds izeq[k v[kckj nSfud HkkLdj esa fnukad 05-03-2016 dks Þouiky HkrhZ ds rhuksa in viuksa ls gh Hkj fy;sß izdkf'kr lekpkj ds laca/k esa izLrqr tkap fjiksVZ ds Øe esa mDr izdj.k esa foLr`r fjiksVZ bl dk;kZy; esa i= Øekad 578@lh fnukad 09-06-2016 }kjk vfrfjDr eq[; lfpo] ou foHkkx jktLFkku t;iqj dks fHktokbZ xbZ FkhA mDr izdj.k esa 'kklu lfpo] ou foHkkx jktLFku t;iqj us vius vkns’k Øekad Ik- 7 ¼4½ ou@2011 t;iqj fnukad 08-07-2016 ls ;g funsZf'kr fd;k gS fd ou foHkkx dh foKfIr Øekad ,Q 15¼1½2015@dkfeZd&HkrhZ@izeqola@11529 fnukad 26-10-2016 }kjk mn;iqj ¼mRrj½ ou e.My ds fy, foKkfir ouiky ds rhu fjDr inksa ds fy, fnukad 09-01-2016 dks vk;ksftr fyf[kr ijh{kk dh xksiuh; Hkax gksus ds dkj.k bl ijh{kk ds vk/kkj ij ?kksf"kr ifj.kke Hkh nwf"kr gksus ij fuEu dk;Zokgh dh tkos %& 1- mn;iqj ¼mRrj½ ou e.My ds fy, ouiky ds rhu fjDr inksa gsrq fnukad 09-01-2016 dks vk;ksftr fyf[kr ijh{kk vkSj mlds vuqØe esa lk{kkRdkj vkfn ds i'pkr ?kksf"kr ifj.kkeksa dks fujLr fd;k tk;s vkSj bu inksa gsrq iqu% ijh{kk vk;ksftr djkbZ tk;sA 2- iqfyl egkfuns'kd Hkz"Vkpkj fujks/kd C;wjks dks ekeys dh rF;kRed fjiksVZ Hkstdj muls bl ijh{kk dh xksiuh;rk Hkax djus ds nks"kh O;fDr;ksa dks irk yxkus ds fy, Hkz"Vkpkj fujks/kd C;wjks ls izkjafHkd tkap djkus dk vkxzg fd;k tk,A vr% jkT; ljdkj ds mDr vkns'kkuqlkj okafNr dk;Zokgh 'kh?kz dh tkdj nks fnol esa bl dk;kZy; dks voxr djkus dk d"V djsaA layXu %& mDrkuqlkj Hkonh; ,lMh@& ¼nhid HkVukxj½ vfrfjDr iz/kku eq[; ou laj{kd ¼iz'kklu½ jktLFkku t;iqj Øekd ,Q 15 ¼1½ 2015@dkfeZd&HkrhZ@izeqola@ fnukad izfrfyfi 'kklu mi lfpo] ou foHkkx] jktLFkku t;iqj dks muds vkns'k Øekad i- 7 ¼4½ ou@2011 t;iqj fnukad 08-07-2016 ds Øe esa lwpukFkZ izsf"kr gSA ¼Mh-ih-tkxkor½ mi ou laj{kd ¼vjkt-izLFkk-½ iz/kku eq[; ou laj{kd jktLFkku] t;iqj^^ 12. On receipt of such a communication from the Head Office, the respondent No.3, the Chief Conservator of Forest was left with no other option, but to cancel the selection of three candidates pursuant to written examination held on 09.01.2016. For the purpose of the present case, it will not be out of context to reproduce the letter dated 13.07.2016 issued by the respondent No.3, which reads thus :- dk;kZy; eq[; ou laj{kd] mn;iqj Øekad ,Q 4¼ ½dkfeZd@eqol@2016@9872 fnukad 13@7@16 fufeRr %& mi ou laj{kd] mn;iqj ¼mRrj½A fo"k; % ouiky ijh{kk 2015&16 ¼ukWu Vh-,l-ih-½ ds rhuksa inksa ij gqbZ HkrhZ ds laca/k esa jkT; ds izeq[k v[kckj nSfud HkkLdj esa fnukad 05-03-2016 dks Þouiky HkrhZ ds rhuksa in viuksa ls gh Hkj fy;sß izdkf’kr lekpkj ds laca/k esa izLrqr tkap fjiksVZ ds Øe esaA egksn;] mijksDr fo"k;kUrxZr ys[k gS fd ouiky ijh{kk 2015&16 ¼ukWu Vh-,l-ih-½ ds rhuksa inksa ij gqbZ HkrhZ ds laca/k esa jkT; ljdkj ds i= Øekad iŒ 07¼04½ ou@2011 t;iqj fnukad 08-07-2016 ,oa iz/kku eq[; ou laj{kd] jktLFkku] t;iqj ds i= Øekad ,Q 15 ¼1½ 2015@dkfeZd&HkrhZ@izeqola@6535 fnukad 11-7-2016 ¼Áfr layXu½ ls fuEu dk;Zokgh djus gsrq funsZf’kr fd;k x;k gS %& 1- mn;iqj ¼mRrj½ ou e.My ds fy, ouiky ds rhu fjDr inksa gsrq fnukad 09-01-2016 dks vk;ksftr fyf[kr ijh{kk vkSj mlds vuqØe esa lk{kkRdkj vkfn ds i'pkr~ ?kksf"kr ifj.kkeksa dks fujLr fd;k tk;s vkSj bu inksa gsrq iqu% ijh{kk vk;ksftr djkbZ tk;sA 2- iqfyl egkfuns’kd Hkz"Vkpkj fujks/kd C;wjksa dks ekeys dh rF;kRed fjiksVZ Hkstdj muls bl ijh{kk dh xksiuh;rk Hkax djus ds nks"kh O;fDr;ksa dks irk yxkus ds fy, Hkz"Vkpkj fujks/kd C;wjks ls izkjafHkd tkWp djkus dk vkxzg fd;k tk,A vr% jkT; ljdkj ls izkIr mDr vkns'kkuqlkj ¼izfr layXu½ fcUnq la[;k 1 esa fn;s x;s funs'kkuqlkj rRdky vko';d dk;Zokgh djsa ,oa iqu% ijh{kk vk;ksftr djus ds fy, vko';d ctV dh ekax i= nsaA layXu %& mDrkuqlkj Hkonh; ,lMh@& ¼f'k[kk esgjk½ eq[; ou laj{kd mn;iqj 13. It is, thus clear that it was under the directives of the above referred two communications dated 08.07.2016 and 11.07.2016, the order impugned dated 14.07.2016 has been issued as a chain reaction, by the respondent No.4. 14. Mr. G.R. Punia, learned Senior Counsel assisted with Mr. Rajesh Punia navigated the Court through numerous correspondence and submitted that cancellation of selection list is per se illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. 14. Mr. G.R. Punia, learned Senior Counsel assisted with Mr. Rajesh Punia navigated the Court through numerous correspondence and submitted that cancellation of selection list is per se illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. He submitted that the select list had been prepared on the basis of the recommendations of the committee duly constituted under Rule 23 (2) of the Rules of 2015, which cannot be cancelled or withdrawn by the respondent No.4, the Dy. Conservator of Forest, Udaipur (North). His another contention has been that apart from the petitioner, two other candidates namely S/Shri Suresh Kumar Garg and Lokesh Kumar Meghwal were also selected as Foresters, who were issued appointment orders and have been permitted to join their respective duties, whereas the petitioner has been discriminated and denied appointment. 15. Mr. Punia submitted that selection of petitioner has been cancelled on the solitary count that the petitioner and other two selected candidates were relatives of the persons already working in the Forest Department. Learned Senior counsel contended that the petitioner has been subjected to hostile discrimination, inasmuch as many other candidates selected pursuant to the advertisement in question were also relatives of the employees of the Forest Department, but they have been permitted to work as Foresters and Forest Guards, while the petitioner was denied appointment. 16. Learned counsel vehemently argued that denial of appointment to the petitioner is based on no material or reason, much less cogent reasons; for which, the impugned order dated 14.07.2016 deserves to be quashed. He added that the aforesaid order dated 14.07.2016 is a culmination of the orders dated 08.07.2016 and 11.07.2016 sent by the State Government and the Addl. Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (Administration), which letters by themselves are illegal and contrary to the facts and the law involved in the present case and the impugned order dated 14.07.2016 based on such illegal orders is liable to be quashed. 17. Mr. S.S. Ladrecha, learned Addl. Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the respondents extensively took the Court through various communications and letters exchanged between the respondents to show that the impugned action of cancellation of selection has been taken in a bid to ensure transparency and fairness of the procedure. Learned Addl. 17. Mr. S.S. Ladrecha, learned Addl. Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the respondents extensively took the Court through various communications and letters exchanged between the respondents to show that the impugned action of cancellation of selection has been taken in a bid to ensure transparency and fairness of the procedure. Learned Addl. Advocate General pointed out that the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest took cognizance of the news item published in the daily newspaper ‘Dainik Bhaskar’ dated 5.3.2016, reporting that ouiky HkrhZ ds rhuksa in viuksa ls gh Hkj fy;s , and appointed Shri D.N. Pandey, Addl. Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Rajasthan Jaipur to enquire into the matter. He added that the selection in question has been cancelled, on the basis of said report of Mr. Pandey. 18. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. Before proceeding further, it would be profitable to to through the exhaustive report dated 11.03.2016 submitted by said Shri D.N. Pandey, which has been relied heavily by the respondents for justifying their stand and action. 19. However, a reading of the report and the excerpts thereof quoted hereinbelow suggests otherwise. 20. The report nowhere suggests, much less records any evidence or material showing involvement of the petitioner or other officers in any sort of mal practice; nor does it bring to fore any incident of aberration from the established procedure nor does point out any single instance of lack of transparency and fairness of procedure. Shri D.N. Pandey, on the other hand, had given a categorical finding that the process of recruitment, particularly the process of written test, as per comparison of guidelines and actual implementation, has not been found contaminated. 21. This Court feels it apt to reproduce the relevant part of the report dated 11.03.2016 prepared by an officer holding high and responsible position, namely Addl. Principal Chief Conservator of Forest. The same is being done hereinfra :- “4. The given reference material to conduct the PE was a news item. Thus, a clear framing of issues of enquiry (i.e. the questions that this PE Report must answer) was required. The key reference material to frame these questions was the news item that was given along with the letter (ref. Annex.1). In addition, some news items that appeared subsequently on similar subject were also referred (Annex.2). Thus, a clear framing of issues of enquiry (i.e. the questions that this PE Report must answer) was required. The key reference material to frame these questions was the news item that was given along with the letter (ref. Annex.1). In addition, some news items that appeared subsequently on similar subject were also referred (Annex.2). Further, the guidelines for the recruitment process issued from the office of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests vide no.F 15 (1)/ 2015/Karmik-Bharti/PCCF/ 12177-84, dated 10.11.2015 were also consulted (Annex.3). In the light of all these sources main issues that this PE addressed are as follows :- 4.1. Some candidates appearing for the selection process have scored full marks in the written examination. Given the Guidelines for the recruitment process issued to conduct the process of selection and examinations, is this scoring of full marks by some candidates exceptional? And if so, has the process of conducting examination in Udaipur been fair? If not, what were the errors and their sources? 4.2. If the process has been fair, was some candidate (or candidates) who scored full marks, been favoured? If yes, then how and by whom? In other words, has there been any selective leakage of question paper of written examination to those candidates who scored 100% marks? And if so, who is responsible? 6.1 A vital question that needs to be probed here is that as some candidates appearing for the selection process have scored full marks in the written examination, and given the Guidelines (ref. Annex.3) for the recruitment process issued to conduct the process of selection and examinations, is this scoring of full marks by some candidates exceptional? And if so, has the process of conducting examination in Udaipur been fair? If not, what were the errors and their sources? 6.1.1. There are many situations when the candidates can obtain full marks in an examination that specifically has objective type question: (I) in case of leakage of the question paper (i.e., prior knowledge of the questions that are included in the question paper); (ii) in case of getting some illegitimate help (e.g., copying, cheating, nakal, change of OMR sheet and so on); (iii) pure statistical chance when candidate attempts all the questions in a direct scoring system (i.e., absence of negative marking); and (iv) in case when the candidate is truly and comprehensively knowledgeable about the subjects covered in the question paper. It is noteworthy here that although they are important for the purpose of this PE the last two conditions noted above do not raise any concern of illegitimacy. The first two, however, need deeper investigation here, particularly since the newspapers have mainly pointed out towards these possibilities. 6.1.3. In order to gather the factual position of events at the centers and rooms where written examination was conducted, the Centre Heads and the Exam Invigilators were called to provide their statements in response to relevant questions asked by undersigned. The Statements are available as follows : Dr. Upendra Rawal, Pradhanacharya, Abhinav Uchch Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Udaipur (Annex.5), Ms. Santosh Mali, Teacher who worked as invigilator at Abhinav Uchch Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Udaipur (Annex.6), Shri Nanihal Singh Chauhan, Pradhanacharya, Rajkeeya Uchch Madhymik Vidyalaya, Paneriyon ki Madri, Udaipur (Annex.7), Shri Girdhari Lal Sharma, Pradhanacharya, Rajkeeya Uchch Madhymik Vidyalaya, Paneriyon Ki Madri, Udaipur (Annex.8: two pages), Shri Yogesh Kumar Paliwal, Teacher, Rajkeeya Uchch Madhymik Vidyalaya, Sakariya Khedi, Udaipur (Annex.9). A careful scrutiny of all these statements (ref. Annex.5 to 9) brings out that there has been no wrong-doing or error or change of any OMR sheet or any breach or deviation from the standard procedure in the examination centers. None of the above authorities have pointed out any issue of safety, security or complaints whatsoever related to written test, and therefore, these statements do not require separate recounting or individual description here. Suffice it conclude that these are also in coherence with statement and conclusion arrived at independently by the CCF Ms. Shikha Mehra (ref. Annex.4, and enclosures therein). 6.1.4. Given the questions that this PE needs to answer, particularly the question 4.1, testimony of Shri Venkatesh Sharma, the then CCF Udaipur became necessary who was responsible for getting the written examination for recruitment conducted including setting of the question paper among other responsibilities (ref. Guidelines, Annex. 3, para.4). The statement by Shri Venkatesh Sharma, the then CCF Udaipur is available at Annex.10. Shri Sharma made a long submission covering issues as follows : (i) the safety, security and secrecy of the question papers, (ii) safety and secrecy of OMR Sheets, (iii) appearing in the examination by the candidates either employed in the Forest Department or relatives of those employed in FD, (iv) possibility of 100% marks in written test, (v) physical test and evaluation of related standards. Shri Sharma has finally concluded in his statement (which he actually more or less repeated in various paragraphs of his submission) that: ^^--lekpkj i=ksa esa izdkf'kr vkyksP; lekpkj vlQy vH;fFkZ;ksa }kjk csgr bekunkjh o esgur ls lEikfnr mä lh/kh HkrhZ izfØ;k dks vuko';d :i ls fcuk fdlh vk/kkj ds lansgkLin cukus dk dqfRlr iz;kl ek= gSA^^ (ref. Annex.10). About the change or otherwise illicit interventions in or related to OMR sheet Shri Sharma has stated that : ---vks ,e vkj 'khVl~ esa fdlh izdkj dh NsM+NkM+ fd;k tkus dk lansg djuk ek= dksjh dYiuk gSA bl izdkj lansg djus dk dksbZ vk/kkj ugha gSA lEiw.kZ dk;Zokgh ftEesnkj vf/kdkfj;ksa ds funsZ’ku esa vusd O;fä;ksa ds le{k gqbZ gSA iw.kZ ikjnf’kZrk o tokcnsgh ls leLr dk;Z dks fd;k x;k gSA ijh{kk v;kstuk dh vof/k esa Jh jktho xks;y] vfr- iz/kku eq[; ou laj{kd ,oa ijh;kstuk funs’kd] jktLFkku okfudh ,oa tSofofo/krk ifj;kstuk }kjk crkSj Ik;Zos{kd }kjk ijh{kk vk;kstu dk i;Zos{k.k Hkh fd;k x;k FkkA^^ Similarly, Shri Sharma has stated an argument that getting 100% marks was possible in this written test because there was no negative marking and the time to attempt 50 questions was 150 minutes (ref. Annex.10, para.4). In support of his argument he has annexed a letter which he wrote to PCCF, Jaipur requesting inter alia to introduce negative marking in the written test (ref. Annex.10, para.4, and copy of the letter appended to Annex. 10). 6.1.7. To conclude the submissions and analysis in this Section 6.1 and to further elucidate the issue being probed by this PE (ref. Section 4.1) a careful examination of the comprehensive guidelines, particularly paragraph 4.1 (ref. Annex.3), bring out that there was no provision for the negative marking for the wrong answers entered in OMR sheet by the candidate. Thus, in the absence of negative marking, the probability of obtaining 100% marks is low but not zero. Likewise, the probability of getting 0% marks is also low but not zero. The only condition that can rule out the probability of scoring 100% marks is that even in the absence of negative marking a candidate does not attempt answering 50 questions in 150 minutes. It is a common knowledge that in the absence of negative marking system candidates have a tendency to answer all the questions, if they are able to do so within the available time, to maximize their chance of maximum score. It is a common knowledge that in the absence of negative marking system candidates have a tendency to answer all the questions, if they are able to do so within the available time, to maximize their chance of maximum score. Finally, there is also no discernible evidence in documents or written submission (ref. Sections 6.1.2 to 6.1.6) that the process of conducting examination in Udaipur has not been fair. There is also no significantly discernible evidence that the guidelines (ref. Annex.3) have not been followed. 6.2. This Sub-section addresses the question (ref. Section 4.2 above) about the possibility of some candidate (or candidates) who scored full marks being favoured? As analysed in Section 6.1 above, the process discernible from the documents and submissions has emerged to be fair, it still begs the question if there has been any selective leakage of question paper of written examination to those candidates who scored 100% marks? And if so, who is responsible? In order to find an answer to this particular contention raised in the newspaper (ref. News item appended to Annex.1) it is essential to take note of the claims made by some unsuccessful candidates. Upon being asked to give their testimony, they communicated to the undersigned a message containing electronic copies of handwritten statement through WhatsApp Messenger (by Shri Mahipal Singh, phone number 9950527169, Annex.12). The reason given by them for not being able to present themselves in person was that they are not in Udaipur as they are traveling to Jodhpur to prepare for filing a writ petition on the issue. Electronic copy of the communication raises concerns but does not provide any evidence supporting those statements of leakage of question paper. The electronic submission specifically notes that the enquiry should be done by an independent agency and not by Forest Department. In the light of this assertion (ref. Annex 12, relevant portion marked by undersigned) it shall not be proper for the undersigned to either examine the merit of assertion or comment on this issue (i.e., whether or not the enquiry should be conducted by an independent agency or by Forest department). Accordingly, the matter is being left here for consideration by the competent authorities in Forest Department. Annex 12, relevant portion marked by undersigned) it shall not be proper for the undersigned to either examine the merit of assertion or comment on this issue (i.e., whether or not the enquiry should be conducted by an independent agency or by Forest department). Accordingly, the matter is being left here for consideration by the competent authorities in Forest Department. Taking stock of available evidence and analysis in Section 6.1 and 6.2 here, and subject to the innate nature of preliminary enquiry and further being subject to the limitations of time and method that PE imposes (e.g., reliance on documentary evidence, oral and written testimonies and cross-questioning, and personal scrutiny of available records), no evidence was discernible to substantiate the claim of leakage or otherwise. This conclusion that leaves the finding equivocal requires caveat and clarification. There are circumstances when despite investigating various angles, available evidence and testimonies some questions remain unanswered principally owing to the innate and fundamental nature of the type of enquiry being conducted and therefore consequent methods of investigation available for use by investigators. Here is the case in which no unequivocal evidence could be found to prove that the process of recruitment has been violated in as much as the leakage or selective leakage of question paper is concerned. Similarly, no unequivocal evidence could become available to deny that possibility. Notwithstanding the equivocal nature of conclusion, there remains a fact that gives rise to apparently unique (cf. really unique) situation. All three persons who have been selected are those who either themselves have been serving with the Forest Department or are related to employees serving in the Forest Department. Accordingly, a way forward has been suggested elsewhere in this PE report (ref. Section 7.4). 7. Before concluding it is worthwhile to note again that the conclusions have been drawn subject to the innate nature of preliminary enquiry and further subject to the limitations of time and method that PE imposes (as described in Section 6.2 above). Subject to the caveat, and based on the evidence available as described above in relevant Sections of this report, following conclusions can be drawn: 7.1. The process of recruitment, particularly the process of written test, as per documentary evidence made available, has not been found contaminated. 7.2. Subject to the caveat, and based on the evidence available as described above in relevant Sections of this report, following conclusions can be drawn: 7.1. The process of recruitment, particularly the process of written test, as per documentary evidence made available, has not been found contaminated. 7.2. Notwithstanding the possibility of wrongdoing claimed by some candidates who were unsuccessful in recruitment, the process of recruitment, particularly the process of written test, as per submitted testimonies given by relevant persons, is also claimed not to have been contaminated. 7.3. The process of recruitment, particularly the process of written test, as per comparison of guidelines and actual implementation, has not been found contaminated. 7.4. Notwithstanding these conclusions (ref. 7.1 to 7.3 above), there is an apparently unique situation, as noted earlier in Section 6.2 above, where selected candidates have scored 100% marks and these candidates either are serving in the Forest Department or they are relatives of personnel serving in the Forest Department. Thus, in future it is necessary to ascertain if the situation is really unique by analysing the results from the jurisdiction of all the CCFs in Rajasthan. And, if the Udaipur situation turns out to be really unique (i.e., without any parallel in any other jurisdiction) then an appropriate decision may be required to be taken for further enquiry as may be considered appropriate. Nevertheless, if the decision making authorities in Forest Department already have reasonable and adequate evidence to prove that the situation in Udaipur is really unique then appropriate decision can follow. However, if the process and outcome are not unique then obviously there may hardly be any concern of significance uniquely applicable to recruitment in Udaipur. 22. After extensively hearing the rival counsels on 11.09.2017, this Court deemed it appropriate and thus called upon the respondents to file a categoric affidavit, with following observation:- “After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material available on record. This Court finds that the Additional Principal Chief Conservator, Forest Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur had submitted a detailed report dated 11.03.2016, giving a clean-chit to the process of selection/recruitment, under consideration. Counsel for the respondents could not point out any fresh material or evidence unearthed after submission of the report dated 11.03.2016, for which selection of the petitioner has been put to peril. Counsel for the respondents could not point out any fresh material or evidence unearthed after submission of the report dated 11.03.2016, for which selection of the petitioner has been put to peril. Respondents are directed to file an affidavit of respondent No.3 indicating as to whether any inquiry was conducted after 11.03.2016 and what was the fresh material or evidence collected thereafter, justifying cancellation of petitioner’s selection. If there is no such material, warranting cancellation of petitioner’s candidature, the respondents shall take appropriate decision about petitioner’s selection including review of the order dated 14.07.2016. Respondents shall also consider to provide posting to the petitioner, as has been done in case of other successful candidates, selected alongwith petitioner, vide office order dated 02.03.2016. List this matter on 18.09.2015, as prayed. Interim order to continue till then.” 23. In compliance of the directions issued by this Court on 11.09.2017, an affidavit of the Chief Conservator of Forest, Udaipur has been filed, indicating therein that pursuant to the letter dated 11.08.2016 written by him, the Anti-corruption Bureau, Udaipur conducted a preliminary enquiry into the matter and arrived at a conclusion that a detailed investigation/probe is needed and in furtherance of such investigation, the Superintendent of Police, Anti-corruption Bureau, Jaipur has sent a communication dated 26.5.2017 that a case has been registered for further investigation. 24. A perusal of the above affidavit shows that nothing substantial has been stated by the respondents in pursuance of the directions issued by this Court and all that has been stated and placed before this Court is; that the Anti-corruption Bureau is investigating in the matter and a preliminary enquiry is being undertaken by them. 25. The fact remains undisputed and uncontroverted that the entire exercise has been initiated on the basis of the newspaper report dated 05.03.2016 and the same has been the sole ground of passing the order impugned, canceling the selection of the petitioner and other two candidates. 26. Wading through the record of the case, this Court has reached to an irresistible conclusion that the impugned order dated 14.7.2016, canceling the petitioner’s selection is based upon conjectures and surmises. There is no evidence or finding recorded by any of the officers, regarding mal practice, lack of transparency, leakage of paper or copying etc. No material has been found so far even worth interrogating the petitioner, much less implicating him. There is no evidence or finding recorded by any of the officers, regarding mal practice, lack of transparency, leakage of paper or copying etc. No material has been found so far even worth interrogating the petitioner, much less implicating him. It is true that the petitioner has scored 100 marks and he happens to be son of an employee, who is discharging his duties as a Driver, in the Office of the Chief Conservator of Forest. But these facts by themselves are not sufficient to infer petitioner’s involvement in any sort of misdeed, wrong doing or otherwise. 27. In teeth of the enquiry report, given by the Chief Conservator of Forest – Shikha Mehra and the detailed report furnished by Mr. D.N. Pandey, Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, action of the respondents cannot be justified. The trail of communications and letters exchanged between the respondents reveal complete lack of self esteem and confidence amongst the officers of respondent Department, who have fallen pray to the pressure mounted by the media. Right from triggering the enquiry by the Chief Conservator of Forest, vide office order dated 05.03.2016 to the passing of the order impugned, the newspaper report dated 5.3.2016 had taken the centre stage; and all orders have flowed therefrom. 28. A perusal of the news item published by the said newspaper, placed by the petitioner along with the additional set of documents filed on 20.09.2017, reveals that it had reported that the selection of three persons on the post of Forester is under the clouds of doubts, as all the three candidates selected on the post of Forester are relatives of the employees of the Forest Department; one being the son of the Driver of Chief Conservator of Forest and the other being son of Assistant Forester, whereas the third had been working as Forest Guard himself. It has further been reported that petitioner’s father – J.P. Nehra is driving the vehicle of the Chief Conservator of Forest, Udaipur namely Venktesh Sharma, who was the person Incharge for the written examination. 29. True it is, that the fact that all the three persons selected on the post of Forester are having direct relationship with the employees working in the Forest Department, is quite astonishing and cannot be taken as a mere coincidence, but such fact should prompt the officers to sound the alarm, instead of pressing the ‘refresh button’. 29. True it is, that the fact that all the three persons selected on the post of Forester are having direct relationship with the employees working in the Forest Department, is quite astonishing and cannot be taken as a mere coincidence, but such fact should prompt the officers to sound the alarm, instead of pressing the ‘refresh button’. 30. The respondents have immediately sprung into action, on reading the newspaper and the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest has kickstarted the enquiry immediately on 05.03.2016 and assigned the job to Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forest – Mr. D.N. Pandey as an enquiry officer, on publication of news. 31. Said enquiry officer Mr. Pandey has delved deep into the matter, examined the record, recorded the statement of all concerned and gave a detailed report dated 11.03.2016, pointing out that the process of recruitment, particularly the process of written test, was in accordance with the guidelines and the actual implementation thereof has not been found contaminated. He had further reported that no evidence were found to prove that the process of recruitment has been violated, as far as selective leakage of question paper is concerned. 32. On receipt of the said report dated 11.03.2016, sent by Mr. Pandey, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest was still not satisfied and decided to get the enquiry conducted through third party and independent agency. In this process, he directed the Chief Conservator of Forest, Udaipur to lodge an FIR in the matter. As the facts have surfaced, the report tendered by the Chief Conservator of Forest has been refused to be registered by the District Superintendent of Police while observing that the complaint is simply based upon the newspaper report and seems to have been instituted for removal or redressal of suspicion, which according to him was neither permissible nor justified. 33. Receiving such communication dated 11.04.2016 from the District Superintendent of Police, Udaipur, the Chief Conservator of Forest, Udaipur in turn requested the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest vide letter dated 13.4.2016 to get the same investigated by Anti-corruption Bureau. 34. 33. Receiving such communication dated 11.04.2016 from the District Superintendent of Police, Udaipur, the Chief Conservator of Forest, Udaipur in turn requested the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest vide letter dated 13.4.2016 to get the same investigated by Anti-corruption Bureau. 34. As stated in the reply filed by the respondents, the Chief Conservator of Forest, Udaipur had written a letter dated 12.05.2016 to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, pursuant to his letter dated 10.05.2016 that her Office has no evidence on the basis whereof it can be said with certainty that there has been intentional bias/nepotism, corruption in the manner of selection for Forester in Udaipur North Division. She of course meekly suggested that since all the three persons selected for the post of Forester are related with the employees working in the Forest Department, it cannot be asserted that there is no possibility of irregularity in the selection. 35. Before the officers of the respondent Department could reach to a definite conclusion, the State Government intervened and the Dy. Secretary to the Government, Forest Department issued an order dated 08.07.2016 holding that secrecy in the written examination held on 09.01.2016 for the post of Forester has been breached, leading to influencing the result, for which, the State Government has decided to cancel the written examination held on 09.01.2016 and the selection pursuant thereto. Secretary to the Government, Forest Department issued an order dated 08.07.2016 holding that secrecy in the written examination held on 09.01.2016 for the post of Forester has been breached, leading to influencing the result, for which, the State Government has decided to cancel the written examination held on 09.01.2016 and the selection pursuant thereto. Since, the impugned action is a culmination of the above order dated 08.07.2016 of the Government, it would be apt to reproduce the same herein extenso :- jktLFkku ljdkj ou foHkkx Øekad %& iŒ 07 ¼04½ ou@2011 t;iqj] fnukad %& 08-07-2016 vkns'k ;r% jkT; ljdkj dk lek/kku gks x;k gS fd ou foHkkx dh foKfIr Øekad ,Q-15¼1½2015@ØkfeZd&HkrhZ@izeqola@11529 fnukad 26-10-2016 }kjk mn;iqj ¼mRrj½ ou e.My ds fy;s foKkfir ouiky ds 3 fjDr inksa ds fy;s fnukad 09-01-2016 dks vk;ksftr fyf[kr ijh{kk dh xksiuh;rk Hkax gqbZ gS] ftlds dkj.k bl ijh{kk ds vk/kkj ij ?kksf"kr ifj.kke Hkh nwf"kr gqvk gSA vr% izeqola (HOFF) dks funsZf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd %& 1- mn;iqj ¼mRrj½ ou e.My ds fy;s ouiky ds 3 fjDr inksa gsrq fnukad 09-01-2016 dks vk;ksftr fyf[kr ijh{kk vkSj mlds vuqØe esa lk{kkRdkj vkfn ds i'pkr~ ?kksf"kr ifj.kkeksa dks fujLr fd;k tk, vkSj bu inksa gsrq iqu% ijh{kk vk;ksftr djkbZ tk,A 2 izeqola dk;kZy; }kjk iqfyl egkfuns'kd] Hkz"Vkpkj fujks/kd C;wjks dks ekeys dh rF;kRed fjiksVZ Hkstdj muls bl ijh{kk dh xksiuh;rk Hkax djus ds nks"kh O;fDr;ksa dk irk yxkus ds fy;s Hkz"Vkpkj fujks/kd C;wjks ls izkjfEHkd tkap djkus dk vkxzg fd;k tk,A vkKk ls ,lMh@& ¼pqUuh yky lSuh½ 'kklu mi lfpo izfrfyfi %& 1- iz/kku eq[; ou lja{kd (HOFF) jkt ljdkj] t;iqj dks lwpukFkZ ,oa vko';d dk;Zokgh gsrq izsf"kr gSA 2- fof'k"V lgk;d] ekuuh; ou ea=h egksn; dks lwpukFkZ izsf"kr gSA 3- futh lfpo] vfrfjDr eq[; lfpo] ou dks lwpukFkZ izsf"kr gSA ,lMh@& 'kklu mi lfpo 36. A perusal of the aforesaid order of the Government, reveals that it neither contains any reason, nor does it make any reference of any enquiry or report by the State Government, necessitating the cancellation of selection process. 37. It is only under the diktat of above order dated 08.07.2016; the respondent NO.4 has cancelled the selection in question vide order dated 14.07.2016, oppugned in the present writ petition. 38. The reply filed by the respondents also does not supply any reason requiring the State Government to pass the aforesaid order dated 08.07.2016. 37. It is only under the diktat of above order dated 08.07.2016; the respondent NO.4 has cancelled the selection in question vide order dated 14.07.2016, oppugned in the present writ petition. 38. The reply filed by the respondents also does not supply any reason requiring the State Government to pass the aforesaid order dated 08.07.2016. As there appeared no justification for canceling the selection in question, this Court had called upon the respondents to file a categorical affidavit, during the course of hearing on 11.09.2017, so as to ensure that nothing substantial may remain unnoticed or unconsidered. 39. It is to be noticed that no additional facts/information/evidence or material has been placed by the respondents to substantiate or justify their abrupt action of canceling the selection, already made. Even in the affidavit dated 18.09.2017, the respondents have simply referred to a preliminary enquiry report dated 26.05.2017, prepared by the Additional Superintendent of Police, Anti-corruption Bureau, Udaipur. 40. On going through the said affidavit and the documents enclosed therewith, including the report dated 26.05.2017, this Court finds that nothing worthwhile has surfaced so far; rather it has been indicated that the issue with regard to selection of petitioner and other two candidates on the post of Forester is under consideration and finding regarding involvement of any public servant, regarding misuse of powers or corruption can be recorded only after due enquiry and receipt of relevant record, which can be done after registering case and conducting detailed enquiry. 41. It is settled preposition of law that the order passed by the Executives are required to be tested on the basis of the reasons recorded therein, as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.S. Gill’s case, reported in 1978 SC p851. It has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court that the orders of the statutory functionary or even the quasi judicial authority is required to be tested on the basis of the reasons contained therein and any subsequent reasoning supplied in the shape of affidavit or reply cannot be looked into or gone into. 42. Neither the order impugned nor the reply filed by the respondents discloses any reason or material justifying the decision of the State Government, canceling the selection. Even the affidavit subsequently filed on 11.09.2017 fails to convey any cogent reason or material for which the orders can be countenanced. 42. Neither the order impugned nor the reply filed by the respondents discloses any reason or material justifying the decision of the State Government, canceling the selection. Even the affidavit subsequently filed on 11.09.2017 fails to convey any cogent reason or material for which the orders can be countenanced. There is no evidence indicating involvement of the petitioner in any sort of mal practice or misuse of the position, his father, a peasant Driver had, in the Office of respondents. 43. After scanning the material available on record, this Court does not find any concrete evidence pointing towards the petitioner’s involvement, in any illegality or irregularity. The genesis of the entire proceedings lies in the newspaper report, upon which the respondents have hustled in passing the order impugned, perhaps to ward off the allegations of corruption or mal practice, which have been hurled against them. Such allegations essentially hovered around the fact that all the three persons selected for the post of Forester were relatives of the employees of the Forest department and many of the candidates have secured 100 marks. 44. Higher Officers of the respondent Department have failed to take a firm stand and withstand the unwarranted indulgence and influence of the media. The allegations had no legs to stand; at least when the news item was published. It is true that as responsible officers of the Department, it is their duty to ensure and provide an atmosphere free from corrupt practices, irregularity or nepotism, but at the same time, it is their duty to investigate into the matter and if no illegality or irregularity is seen, to take a firm stand and stick to the selection they have made. 45. In wake of the report forwarded by the Chief Conservator of Forest, Udaipur and so also the report furnished by Mr. D.N. Pandey, holding a high position in the respondent department, the respondents ought not to have succumbed to the media pressure; particularly in absence of any material, tainting the sanctity of the selection process. 46. On perusal of the record and documents furnished by the petitioner, this Court finds that it is not only the petitioner, who had secured 100 marks out of 100; there were many other candidates who have scored 100 or nearly 100 marks in the said selection. Mr. 46. On perusal of the record and documents furnished by the petitioner, this Court finds that it is not only the petitioner, who had secured 100 marks out of 100; there were many other candidates who have scored 100 or nearly 100 marks in the said selection. Mr. Punia, had submitted that in response to a question raised in the Assembly, it was informed by the Forest Department that as many as 17 candidates had scored 100 marks in the written examination in question, held for Forester and Forest Guard. 47. Though Mr. D.N. Pandy has reported that as the pattern of examination did not provide for awarding of negative marks, possibility of many students, scoring full marks cannot be ruled out; yet without taking cognizance of this aspect, this Court is of the opinion that it seems to be more than just a coincidence that the petitioner and other candidates have scored full marks. This also does not appear to be a fortuitous circumstance that all the three persons selected are relatives of employees of the Forest Department. These striking features do give rise to a doubt, but such doubt cannot lead to such an extreme action of canceling the selection of duly selected candidates, without there being any evidence. The order canceling the selection is a knee jerk reaction, on the new item, having been passed without application of mind. The order impugned is thus clearly arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 48. As an upshot of the above discussion, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 08.07.2016 issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Government, directing the respondents to call off the selection and the consequential order dated 14.07.2016, canceling petitioner’s selection are quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to provide posting to the petitioner as a Forester, within a period of one month from today. 49. After joining the duty, pursuant to the order instant, the petitioner shall not claim any equity as he has been allowed to join the duties nor shall he claim any immunity from any proceeding(s) simply because the orders dated 14.7.2016 and 08.07.2016 have been quashed by the present order. 50. 49. After joining the duty, pursuant to the order instant, the petitioner shall not claim any equity as he has been allowed to join the duties nor shall he claim any immunity from any proceeding(s) simply because the orders dated 14.7.2016 and 08.07.2016 have been quashed by the present order. 50. It is iterated that this Court has quashed the order impugned based on the material existing on the date of passing of the order i.e. on 14.07.2016 and has not expressed any opinion about or pronounced upon the sanctity or otherwise of the selection process. Any observation made in the present judgment may not be construed to be an observation or finding about the subject selection process. If the respondents on the basis of the ongoing enquiry by the Anti-Corruption Bureau, or otherwise reach to a conclusion that the petitioner’s selection was in any manner influenced by any illegal means or was made inappropriately; they shall be free, rather duty bound to take appropriate proceedings. 51. Needless to observe that as and when such report is received, the petitioner shall be provided a copy thereof and would be proceeded against, in accordance with law. 52. Writ petition succeeds as indicated above; however without any order as to cost.