JUDGMENT : SANGEETA CHANDRA, J. 1. All these appeals relating to District Maharajganj, have been filed by the State of U.P against the order passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge dated 10.5.2004 in Writ Petition No. 41981 of 1992 (Vijay Krishna Chaturvedi and another v. State of U.P. and others), Writ Petition No.41982 of 1992 (Shripati Narayan Singh and 9 others v. State of U.P and others) and the judgment and order dated 16.8.2007 passed in Writ Petition No.41662 of 1992 (Shambhu Nath Pandey and 2 others v. State of U.P and others) wherein the Hon'ble Single Judge has relied upon judgment dated 10.5.2004 and quashed the impugned order dated 30.10.1992 cancelling the appointment of the respondent petitioners and directed that they shall be deemed to have been regularized with effect from 26.6.1991 2. The facts relevant for deciding these special appeals as given in the 3 writ petitions are as follows:- In the writ petition filed by Shripati Narayan Singh and 9 others, it was alleged that in 1985 respondent petitioners 1 to 6 were selected as Assistant Wasil Baki Navis (herein after referred to as AWBN) along with several others, but were given only short term seasonal appointments. Petitioners No.6 to 10 were similarly selected as Assistant Wasil Baki Navis (AWBNs) in a selection held in 1981 in District Gorakhpur but were given only short term seasonal appointments and all of them continued as such on short term seasonal basis till 2nd October 1989 when District Gorakhpur was bifurcated and new District Maharajganj was created. In District Maharajganj they continued to function on an adhoc basis and at one point of time the District Magistrate, Maharajganj proposed to hold a formal examination to make them regular. The petitioners however, protested and representations were filed claiming regularization on the basis that they had already faced one selection in District Gorakhpur. The idea of holding a formal selection for regularization was dropped by the then District Magistrate, Maharajganj. See Para 3. 3. Later on a fresh selection committee was constituted on a proposal of the Prabhari Adhikari Sanyukt Karyalaya and the parties were selected and appointed on 26.6.1991. 4. On 29.6.1991, the State Government issued a radiogram staying all the recruitment/appointments till further orders and the petitioners continued to work for 1 year and 4 months but on 30th October, 1992 their services were terminated/appointment orders were cancelled. 5. 4. On 29.6.1991, the State Government issued a radiogram staying all the recruitment/appointments till further orders and the petitioners continued to work for 1 year and 4 months but on 30th October, 1992 their services were terminated/appointment orders were cancelled. 5. Against these orders dated 30.10.1992 the writ petitions were filed by Shripati Narayan Singh and 9 others (Writ Petition No.41982 of 1992) and Vijay Krishna Chaturvedi and another (Writ Petition No.41981 of 1992) and the interim orders were granted on 13.11.1992 staying the operation of the order dated 30.10.1992 on the basis of the which, the petitioners continued to work. 6. A counter affidavit along with stay vacation application was filed wherein, it was brought on record that on 24.07.1991 a complaint was made by the then Deputy Block Pramukh which complaint was forwarded by the Joint Secretary, Board of Revenue to the District Magistrate, Maharajganj and the District Magistrate directed the ADM (Finance and Revenue) to hold an enquiry into the matter on 30.09.1991. In the complaint dated 24.7.1991 it was alleged that the then DM along with ADM (Finance and Revenue) had made antedated appointments for extraneous considerations without following due procedure and in spite of the ban imposed by the Government on all recruitment. 7. The ADM (Finance and Revenue) thereafter conducted an enquiry and examined the records and from the records it was evident that no regular selection committee was formed under the relevant Service Rules i.e. UP Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff (Direct Recruitment) Rules, 1975 as amended in 1979, 1980 and 1985. (Hereinafter referred to the Service Rules of 1975 as amended) The selections were held in a hurried manner without there being any proposal for recruitment of clerical staff from the Routine Grade Clerk routed through the Administrative Officer. Similarly, there was no file noting on record to show that the Nazir Sadar had ever made any request for recruitment of Drivers and Peons. The file noting was made only by the then Prabhari Adhikari Sanyukt Karyalaya and routed through ADM (Finance and Revenue) and the District Magistrate. Similarly, there was no file noting on record to show that the Nazir Sadar had ever made any request for recruitment of Drivers and Peons. The file noting was made only by the then Prabhari Adhikari Sanyukt Karyalaya and routed through ADM (Finance and Revenue) and the District Magistrate. The file noting also showed that no attempt was made to determine and notify the number of vacancies to the Employment Exchange or even paste a notice on the Notice Board of the office or to advertise through daily newspapers, inviting application from all eligible candidates for regular direct recruitment as was provided under the Service Rules (as amended.) The file clearly showed that the vacancies were determined some time in May, 1991 and only adhoc clerks, drivers and peons working either on daily wage or on consolidated pay participated in the selection. The selection committee was not constituted as per the Rules as there was no Officer of minority community in the said Selection Committee and no request was made by the office of the District Magistrate to the office of the Divisional Commissioner too for nomination of a District Level Officer of the Minority Community to participate in the selection. As per the Service Rules (as amended), the selection committee was duty bound to prepare a merit list of candidates on the basis of their marks obtained in their College/University Examination. This merit list was to be placed before the selection committee which was to hold an interview of all the candidates to gauge their knowledge in general/current affairs, their proficiency in sports etc. In fact, neither the merit list of candidates was prepared on the basis of short listing according to merit and educational qualifications nor any interview was held, as no broad sheet was prepared of marks obtained in interview by each of the candidates. Not only this, the maximum age limit prescribed under the Rules for general category candidates was 18 to 30 years with relaxation of 5 years for reserved category candidates but the date of birth of the petitioners clearly showed that out of 12 candidates selected for clerical posts, 9 were overage whereas all three drivers were also overage. The period of probation as given in the Rules was curtailed from two years to one year in the appointment orders which were issued. 8. The period of probation as given in the Rules was curtailed from two years to one year in the appointment orders which were issued. 8. Since explanation was called from Jawahar Lal, the then Prabhari Adhikari Sanyukt Karyalaya and the then District Magistrate and they did not submit any satisfactory explanation, the presumption regarding the correctness of the allegations made in the complaint dated 24.07.1991 could clearly be drawn. 9. In the judgment and order dated 10.5.2004, the Hon'ble Single Judge has recorded that Shripati Narayan Singh and others had also filed Writ Petition No.10908 of 1986 which was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court with a direction to consider the case of the petitioners for appointment to the vacancies existing prior to 30.06.1986, and to make appointment on those vacancies in accordance with the select list prepared in accordance with the UP Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff (Direct Recruitment) Rules, 1985, before these rules were amended with effect from 1st July, 1986. The Hon'ble Single Judge also recorded that 6 persons who were selected along with the petitioners and had continued to work in Gorakhpur after creation of District Maharajganj were regularized in March, 1991, the petitioners, however were asked to appear in fresh selection to be held in May, 1990 by the then District Magistrate, Maharajganj to which they objected and the matter was dropped and no selection for regularization of the petitioners could be made and they were allowed to continue on adhoc basis. The Hon'ble Single Judge has then observed that in terms of the earlier selection held in the year 1981 and 1985, the candidates selected therein had been given only seasonal/adhoc appointments as AWBNS and they had a valid claim for regular appointment as clerks on the 12 vacancies that had arisen in 1991 in District Maharajganj. 10. The Hon'ble Single Judge quashed the order dated 30.10.1992 and directed that the petitioners shall be deemed to be regularized in service with effect from 26.06.1991 with all consequential benefits. 11. The Special Appeal No.938 of 2015 arises out of judgment and order dated 16.08.2007 wherein Shambhu Nath Pandey and 2 others who were appointed as drivers in the same selection of June, 1991 had come in Writ Petition No.41662 of 1992 challenging the order of cancellation of appointment dated 30.10.1992. 11. The Special Appeal No.938 of 2015 arises out of judgment and order dated 16.08.2007 wherein Shambhu Nath Pandey and 2 others who were appointed as drivers in the same selection of June, 1991 had come in Writ Petition No.41662 of 1992 challenging the order of cancellation of appointment dated 30.10.1992. The Hon'ble Single Judge based upon the submission made at the bar gave the benefit of judgment and order dated 10.05.2004. 12. At the time of argument before us much emphasis was laid by the counsel for the respondent petitioners on the fact that Shripati Narayan Singh and others has earlier filed writ petition No.10908 of 1986 wherein, the Division Bench had come to the conclusion that the Selection Committee which was constituted in June 1985 had found the petitioner's suitable for appointment against existing vacancies in the select list that was published on 27 September 1985. Having been so selected, the petitioner's were entitled for being issued regular appointment orders on the ground that Subordinate offices Ministerial Staff (Direct Recruitment Rules)were amended only on 8th September 1986, and were deemed to have been enforced from 1st July 1986. Since, recruitment year meant the period of 12 months commencing from first day of July of the calendar year in which recruitment is being made upto 30th June of the year following, the list of selected candidates could be cancelled only on the close of the recruitment year i.e. on 30th June 1986. Since, the selection was held in June 1985 and select list was published in September 1985 the said select list remained valid upto 30th June 1986. The new Rules came into force with effect from 1st July 1986. Hence the petitioner's therein were entitled for regular appointment in vacancies that had arisen prior to 30th June 1986. A mandamus had been therefore issued on 3.5.1988 that appointments were to be made in the vacancies arisen upto 30th June 1986 in accordance with the select list of September 1985 in order of merit. This order of the Division Bench was complied with by the authorities of District Gorakhpur and persons selected along with petitioners who were left behind in Gorakhpur were given regular appointment thereafter. However, those persons like the petitioners who became employees of District Maharajganj after October 1986, were denied the benefit of the judgment. This order of the Division Bench was complied with by the authorities of District Gorakhpur and persons selected along with petitioners who were left behind in Gorakhpur were given regular appointment thereafter. However, those persons like the petitioners who became employees of District Maharajganj after October 1986, were denied the benefit of the judgment. They were asked to appear again in the selection for regularization proposed by the District Magistrate in May 1990, when they objected the matter was dropped. Again in May 1991 proposal was moved for regular appointment of the petitioner's in the vacancies that had arisen in District Maharajganj upto May, 1991. 13. It was argued by the counsel for the respondents petitioner's that a perusal of Annexure 16 and 17 of the Writ Petition No.41982 of 1992 would show that the selection was regularly held in accordance with Rules, much before the issuance of Radiogram by the State Government which was sent only on 29th June, 1991 staying all fresh recruitments/appointments until further orders. The petitioners had been issued appointment orders on 26.06.1991 itself and had started working and continued to work for one year and four months before the impugned order dated 30th October, 1992 was issued cancelling their appointments all of sudden. The petitioners were not given any opportunity of hearing or even show cause notice and on the basis of an ex-parte fact, finding enquiry, their services were terminated. 14. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the respondent petitioners that even if the enquiry report of the ADM (Finance and Revenue) is treated to be correct on conclusions drawn therein that no selection was held in June 1991 accordance with UP Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff (Direct Recruitment) Rules, the fact remains with that the petitioners having been earlier selected in a validly held selection, which was approved by the Division Bench of this Court in its judgment and order dated 03.05.1988, made the claim of the petitioners for regular appointment a valid claim to be considered by the authorities. No fresh selection was required and the subsequent selection that was held in June, 1991 even if vitiated and against the Rules was not at all required, as the petitioners were not required to face selection after bifurcation of District Gorakhpur and creation of District Maharajganj. No fresh selection was required and the subsequent selection that was held in June, 1991 even if vitiated and against the Rules was not at all required, as the petitioners were not required to face selection after bifurcation of District Gorakhpur and creation of District Maharajganj. Once they had been duly selected in 1981 and 1985, these petitioners should have been treated a par with those retained in District Gorakhpur, hence, termination order dated 30.10.1992 based on the enquiry report of the ADM (Finance and Revenue) which enquiry was vitiated, as it was held behind the back of the petitioners and against the principles of natural justice, deserved to be quashed. 15. The counsel for the State appellants on the other hand, has taken us through the enquiry report filed as Annexure-1 in the special appeal. From the perusal of the enquiry report, it is clear that the UP Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff (Direct Recruitment) Rules, 1975 as amended in 1979 and 1985 had been clearly ignored in the selection held by the then District Magistrate allegedly in June, 1991. 16. It was argued further that even from a perusal of Annexure- 16 and 17 of the Writ Petition No.41982 of 1992, it is evident that no advertisement was issued, no notification of the vacancies was made on the office notice board, no requisition was made to the District Employment Exchange, no merit list was drawn up on the basis of marks obtained in school examination or on the basis of minimum educational qualification or higher education qualification possessed by any of the candidates. No typing test was held for appointment of typist clerks, no interview was held, no broad sheet was prepared by any member of the selection committee. The maximum age limit prescribed for direct recruitment under the Rules was also clearly ignored. In fact, no regular selection was held at all. 17. In so far as judgment and order dated 03.05.1988 in Writ Petition No.10908 of 1986 is concerned, it has been pointed out by the counsel for the State appellants that any entitlement of the petitioners therein for regular appointment was only limited to vacancies that had arisen upto 30th June, 1986. 17. In so far as judgment and order dated 03.05.1988 in Writ Petition No.10908 of 1986 is concerned, it has been pointed out by the counsel for the State appellants that any entitlement of the petitioners therein for regular appointment was only limited to vacancies that had arisen upto 30th June, 1986. Since District Maharajganj was created on 2nd October, 1989, the select list published in September, 1985 for District Gorakhpur, which, by the order of the Division Bench itself was valid only upto 30th June, 1986, could not have been relied by the Hon'ble Single Judge to hold that no fresh selection was required at all. 18. The counsel for the State appellants also pointed out that the judgment and order dated 16.08.2007 suffers from an additional infirmity in so far as it relies upon the judgment rendered in the case of Shripati Narayan Singh & Vijay Krishna Chaturvedi which was based upon the learned Single Judge observing that those writ petitioners had been selected in 1985, and had worked on seasonal basis as AWBNS in District Gorakhpur, and their selection in 1985 had been held to be valid selection as per the Rules by the Division Bench in its judgment and order dated 03.05.2008, entitling them for regular appointment in vacancies upto 30th June, 1986. This was not the case, however in the case of Shambhu Nath Pandey, Sri Umesh Chandra and Mahboob Ali who had been engaged on adhoc basis as driver in district Maharajganj after its creation in 1990 only. They could not have been given the benefit of judgment rendered in the case of Shripati Narayan Singh on 03.05.1988 by the Division Bench of this Court. 19. We have gone through the Annexures of the Writ Petition and Counter Affidavit and the allegation made by the complainant in his letter dated 24.07.1991 appear to be correct, as from the perusal of the record, it is evident that the then District Magistrate had hurriedly constituted a selection committee and issued appointment orders where no dispatch numbers were indicated. We have gone through the Annexures of the Writ Petition and Counter Affidavit and the allegation made by the complainant in his letter dated 24.07.1991 appear to be correct, as from the perusal of the record, it is evident that the then District Magistrate had hurriedly constituted a selection committee and issued appointment orders where no dispatch numbers were indicated. The appointment order shows on the top left hand side corner no dispatch number but it is only written "Memo/ST" and the date given also shows that 2nd July, 1991, had been typed which has been erased and re-typed as 26th June, 1991, this was perhaps because by a radiogram on 29th June, 1991, the State Government had imposed a ban with immediate effect on all kinds of fresh recruitments / appointments, in all offices subordinate to it. 20. We have also found from Annexure-16 that the regular procedure for making proposal for filling up the vacancies under the Rules was not followed. No proposal was made on the file by the Routine Grade Clerk or any Administrative Officer of the Sanyukt Karyalaya nor any noting on the file was made by Nazir Sadar of the need for recruitment of drivers and peons and clerks. Only three officers were involved in the alleged selection and file notings were manipulated by the then Prabhari Adhikari Sanyukt Karyalaya the then ADM (Finance and Revenue), and the then District Magistrate. The appointment orders were not even endorsed to the Administrative Officer, Nazir Sadar or the Record Keeper or the Billing Clerk to be maintained in the office record. The conclusion drawn by the enquiry officer that there was antedating/backdating of the alleged selection process seems to be corrupt as The issuance of appointment orders could not have been done if the file had been routed in the regular manner through all such subordinate officers and it would have become difficult to keep the whole process a secret. 21. From a perusal of the UP Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff (Direct Recruitment) Rules, 1975 as amended in 1979 and 1985, it is evident that these Rules prescribed firstly the determination of vacancies then the requisition of names from the Employment Exchange. 21. From a perusal of the UP Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff (Direct Recruitment) Rules, 1975 as amended in 1979 and 1985, it is evident that these Rules prescribed firstly the determination of vacancies then the requisition of names from the Employment Exchange. The appointing authority could also entertain applications directly from those candidates who were registered in the Employment Exchange but for this purpose a notice should be pasted on the Notice Board of the Office notifying such vacancies and advertisement was to be made in daily newspapers having wide circulation in the area. All the application forms of the candidates were to be examined by the selection committee and marks were to be awarded on the basis of the minimum educational qualification and additional marks were to be given on the basis of higher qualifications, if possessed by a candidate. The shortlisted candidates on the basis of merit were to be called for interview and in the interview the candidates were to be tested on the basis of their knowledge of current affairs and their proficiency in sports etc. Not only this, in case of engagement of typists/ clerks, a typing test was also to be held and the marks were to be added in the marks obtained by a candidate on the basis of merit, in school examinations. 22. From the perusal of the fact finding enquiry report of the ADM (Finance and Revenue) and the file noting relied upon by the petitioners and the appointment orders issued to them (filed as Annexure 16 and 17 to the writ petition by Shripati Narayan Singh); it is apparent that the Service Rules in question were not followed at all and there was wide spread illegality in the selection of the petitioners which vitiated the whole selection. 23. The counsel for the respondents-petitioners have also stated before us that on the basis of the interim orders granted in November, 1992 all the respondents-petitioners have continued and when the writ petition was allowed and special appeals were filed with delay by the State appellants, no interim orders were granted and the respondents-petitioners continued to work. Some of the respondent petitioners were promoted and some have also retired. In the facts of the case, therefore, there was no need to interfere in the orders of the Hon'ble Single Judge dated 10.05.2004 and 16.08.2007 at this belated stage. Some of the respondent petitioners were promoted and some have also retired. In the facts of the case, therefore, there was no need to interfere in the orders of the Hon'ble Single Judge dated 10.05.2004 and 16.08.2007 at this belated stage. The counsel for the respondents-petitioners have relied upon the following judgments to buttress their arguments:- (i) Padam Singh Sharma v. State of UP and others 2001 (2) UPLBEC 819 (Allahabad) (ii) State of Karnataka and others v. M.L. Kesari (2010) 9 SCC Page 247. (iii) Sanjay Kumar Upadhyay v. Palak Dhari Yadav and others (2016) 4 SCC Page 621. (iv) Vikas Pratap Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh and others (2013) 14 SCC Page 494. (v) Mahipal Singh Tomar v. State of UP (2013) 16 SCC Page 771. 24. In the case of Padam Singh Sharma (Supra), an order of dismissal was set aside by the Division Bench of this Court because it has been passed merely on the basis of the preliminary enquiry without holding regular departmental enquiry, on the ground that the writ petitioner therein was entitled to protection under Article 311 of the Constitution. The fact of the instant case are different as the order dated 30th October, 1992 in writ petition was not an order of dismissal on the basis of misconduct of the respondents petitioners themselves, but an order of cancellation of appointment, which appointment it was found on enquiry to have been made against the rules and during the subsistence of a ban on recruitment by the State Government. 25. In the case of State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court had explained the purport of Para-53 of the judgment rendered by the Constitution Bench in the case of State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC Page 1. It was observed that if an employee had worked for ten years or more on a duly sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of an interim order of any Court or Tribunal, and the initial appointment of such employee was not illegal, (even if irregular), he was entitled for being considered for regularization as a onetime measure by the State Government. However, where the appointment was made not made or continued against any sanctioned post or where the persons appointed had not possessed prescribed minimum qualifications, the appointment would be considered illegal. However, where the appointment was made not made or continued against any sanctioned post or where the persons appointed had not possessed prescribed minimum qualifications, the appointment would be considered illegal. Also, where the person employed possessed the prescribed qualification and was working against a sanctioned post and had been selected without ignoring the rights of others in an open selection, such appointments were to be considered as irregular and liable to be regularized. 26. The counsel for the respondents-petitioners have stressed on the fact that the petitioners have continued for more than 20 years after the writ petitions were filed and they were even confirmed in the meantime. It has also been alleged that as per the Regularisation Rules, 1979 also, the petitioners were entitled to be considered for regularization in 1991 itself, due to the long years of service rendered by them on daily wage/contract/adhoc basis. 27. We have gone through the record of service rendered by the petitioners as detailed in the Annexures filed to the Writ Petition No.41982 of 1992. The Annexure Nos.1 to 10 give the details of working of the petitioners 1 to 10. The charts annexed shows that the petitioners were engaged for a few days or for a few months each year and each of the petitioners at the time of alleged selection held in June, 1991, two to six years of continuous service. As per the Rules, 1979 also, they were not entitled for regularization as after the creation of District Maharajganj, their earlier services rendered in District Gorakhpur were liable to be ignored as the new posts were now created in District Maharajganj which should have been advertised and filled up through open selection. Moreover, after the writ petitions were filed challenging the order dated 30th October, 1992, the petitioners continued only on the basis of interim orders till their writ petitions were allowed in 2004/2007. 28. In the case of Mahipal Singh Tomar (supra), appellants were regularly selected candidates by UP Higher Education Services Commission but their placement in various degree colleges was challenged and it was found on enquiry that in some cases candidates were given placement against non-existent posts. On the basis of the facts finding enquiry, the State Government issued direction for cancellation of placement of the appellants and pursuant thereto, the managements of the colleges terminated the services of the appellants. On the basis of the facts finding enquiry, the State Government issued direction for cancellation of placement of the appellants and pursuant thereto, the managements of the colleges terminated the services of the appellants. The appellants were neither supplied the copy of the report prepared by the District Magistrate nor they were given any show cause notice or any opportunity of hearing. The Supreme Court held that the appellants were not instrumental in their placement in particular colleges or change of placement from one college to another, nor had used any undue influence for securing placement in particular colleges. The question whether the appellants placement in the particular college was contrary to the rules and whether their placement was subsequently changed for extraneous considerations could not have been decided without supplying each one them a copy of the enquiry report and without giving them opportunity to controvert the findings recorded by the District Magistrate. The termination of the appellants' services was found to be in violation of principles of natural justice and a direction was issued that the Director of Higher Education could relocate or change the placement of the appellants in accordance with the relevant statutory provisions. 29. There was no sufficient material which enabled the State to arrive at a satisfaction that the officers responsible for the selection/placements had been found to be part of the fraudulent purpose or the system itself was corrupt, which led to the wrong placement of the appellants in colleges with non-existence posts. 30. In the case of Vikas Pratap Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh and others (Supra), the appellants were selected for the posts of Subedar/Platoon Commander/Sub Inspector in a selection held by the Government of Chhattisgarh. Later reevaluation of their answer sheets were done on a selective basis while they were undergoing training and some of them had even been given appointment. Subsequently a revised merit list was published, cancelling the appointments of the appellants. The appellants on the basis of the interim orders passed by the learned Single Judge had completed more than three years of service. The Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the question that after having undergone training and assuming the charge at their places of posting and having rendered more than three years of service the appellants were ousted from service on the basis of their cancellation of appointment qua the revised merit list. The Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the question that after having undergone training and assuming the charge at their places of posting and having rendered more than three years of service the appellants were ousted from service on the basis of their cancellation of appointment qua the revised merit list. The Supreme Court while concurring with the observations made by the High Court that no legal right accrued in respect of appointments to a post to a candidate who had obtained the employment by fraud, mischief, misrepresentation or in a malafide manner, held that when the appointment was made without any mistake of the appointee and upon discovery of such error or irregularity the appointment is terminated, the Court must take a sympathetic view. Cancellation of appointment after considerable length of time, would severely affect economic security of a candidate. The Supreme Court took into account several judgments where even though the appointments were found to be irregular by the Court, the Court had refused to set aside such appointments in view of length of service (five years or more). The Supreme Court had adopted the sympathetic view only on the ground that the error committed by the authorities in wrong evaluation of answer sheets could not have been attributed to the appellants and they had neither been found to have committed any fraud or misrepresentation in being appointed qua the first merit list, nor were they in any way responsible for preparation of erroneous model answer keys and the specious result could not have been attributed to them. 31. In the case of Sanjay Kumar Upadhyay (Supra) appointment of the appellant as a clerk by way of direct recruitment was challenged by the respondent on the ground that the post should have been filled up by way of promotion. The writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge but the Division Bench allowed the appeal and the appointment was cancelled and a direction was issued to fill up the post by way of promotion. The writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge but the Division Bench allowed the appeal and the appointment was cancelled and a direction was issued to fill up the post by way of promotion. The appeal filed before the Supreme Court was not disposed of on merit but on the ground that no one had appeared on behalf of the respondent and the respondent having retired, his case for promotion even otherwise could not be considered now; no candidate other than respondents had come forward claiming promotion to the post of clerk; the appellant had been continuously working on the post for the last 26 years on the basis of the selection and then on the basis of the order of Single Judge and if the appellant was allowed to continue till he attained the age of retirement, no prejudice was likely to be caused to anyone. 32. In our opinion, this case is clearly distinguishable as it has been decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution. No such jurisdiction is vested in this High Court. Moreover, from a perusal of the said judgment, it is not clear whether there was any allegation of any illegality or fraudulent behaviour on the part of the appellant or of the management as the appointment made by the management of the institution had been approved by the Regional Inspector of Girls School also. 33. The counsel for the State appellants has relied upon the following judgments:- (I) Chief Engineer and others v. Pancham Ram and others 2004 ALJ 291 (Alld.) (DB). (II) Union of India and others v. O. Chakradhar (2002) 3 SCC Page 146. (III) State of Orissa v. Mamta Mohanti 2011 ALJ. 34. The judgments cited by the counsel for the State appellants seem to carry much force. The Court has held in these cases that where the mischief in conducting the selection was so widespread and all pervasive as to effect the result as a whole, the whole selection should be cancelled without issuing individual show cause notices to the persons selected. 35. The Court has held in these cases that where the mischief in conducting the selection was so widespread and all pervasive as to effect the result as a whole, the whole selection should be cancelled without issuing individual show cause notices to the persons selected. 35. In the case of Chief Engineer v. Pancham Ram, the High Court relied upon the judgment rendered in the case of Union of India v. O. Chakradhar 2002 (3) SCC 146 and Union Territory of Chandigarh v. Dilbagh Singh AIR 1993 (SC) 796 to hold that where there are complaints of malpractices in the recruitment process and the select list is prepared in an unfair manner, it is not necessary to give opportunity of hearing to those selected before cancelling the select list. Moreover the principles of natural justice are not a straight jacket formula to be complied with in all such cases as has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Tulsi Ram Patel AIR 1985 (SC) 1416 and in the case of S.L. Kapur v. Jagmohan AIR 1981 (SC) 136 . 36. In the case of Union of India v. O. Chakradhar 2002 (3) SCC 146 , the selection was cancelled after about three years of appointment because irregularities in the process of selection were all pervasive vitiating the whole selection. The Court held that when the entire selection was vitiated individual cases of innocence would have no relevance. The Court observed in the said judgment thus "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 considerations, but the question is should such a selection be acted upon in the matter of public employment ?" 37. In the case of Mamta Mohanti (Supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that even calling names from the Employment Exchange would not be sufficient to meet the requirement of Article 16 of the Constitution. In addition thereto, it is mandatory on the part of the employer to invite applications from all eligible candidates from the open market by advertising the vacancies in a newspaper having wide circulation. In addition thereto, it is mandatory on the part of the employer to invite applications from all eligible candidates from the open market by advertising the vacancies in a newspaper having wide circulation. Unless the vacancies were widely advertised all candidates who are eligible for the post would not apply and a person employed in violation of Article 16 of the Constitution is not entitled to any relief including salary. In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court also observed that if an order is bad in its inception it does not get sanctified at a later stage. Subsequent actions. 38. In the case of Mohd, Sartaj v. State of U.P and others 2006 2 SCC Page 315 regarding non-compliance of natural justice, the court opined that any selection made in violation of the relevant rules was illegal and the action of cancellation when taken swiftly and within a short interval would not be vitiated. Only because the appellants were allowed to continue on the post in pursuance of the interim order, would not entitle them to the post on which they were illegally appointed. In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India 1999 6 SCC Page 237, the Supreme Court has laid down that there can be certain situation in which an order passed in violation of natural justice need not be set aside under Article 226 of the Constitution. In Aligarh Muslim University v. Mansoor Ali Khan AIR 2000 Supreme Court 2783, the Court consider the question whether on facts of the case the employee can invoke the principles of natural justice and, whether it is a case where, even if notice had been given, result would not have been different and whether it could be said that prejudice was cause to him, if on the admitted or proved facts, grant of opportunity would not have made any difference. When the facts are admitted, an inquiry would have been an empty formality. The principles of natural justice would be attractive only when services of some persons are terminated by way of punitive measure or thereby a stigma is attached. The appointment of the appellants being dehors the rules could not therefore have been permitted to continue. We respectfully agree with the ratio of the judgment rendered in the case of Mohd. Sartaj(Supra). 39. The special appeals are allowed. The judgments impugned in these three appeals are set aside. The appointment of the appellants being dehors the rules could not therefore have been permitted to continue. We respectfully agree with the ratio of the judgment rendered in the case of Mohd. Sartaj(Supra). 39. The special appeals are allowed. The judgments impugned in these three appeals are set aside. However, since the respondents have been continued on the basis of orders passed by this Court earlier, no refund of salary can be claimed due to setting aside of their appointments and setting aside the order of the Hon'ble Single Judge. However, for retiral and pensionary benefits, the services already rendered on the basis of orders of this Court shall not count. Pension and other retiral benefits already availed of by any of the employees who retired in the meantime shall not be subject to recovery. Costs easy.