Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1845 (JHR)

Dikesh Kumar v. State of Jharkhand

2019-11-08

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

body2019
ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned Senior counsel, assisted by Mr. Piyush Chitresh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P. (S) No. 3976 of 2016, W.P. (S) No. 3974 of 2016 and W.P. (S) No. 3975 of 2016 and Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned Advocate General, assisted by Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha, learned SC-IV, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State of Jharkhand in all the matters and Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P. (S) No. 5638 of 2017. Rest of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in other writ petitions has adopted the arguments advanced by Mr. Rajiv Ranjan. Learned counsel, Mr. Amit Kumar Das has argued in W.P. (S) No. 5638 of 2017, wherein, the prayer is for setting aside the decision of termination of services of the petitioners contained in memo no. 573/Ra. Ka. dated 08.04.2017. 2. In these cases, common question of fact and law is involved and that is why they have been heard together. All the writ petitions are common. W.P. (S) No. 3976 of 2016 has been taken as lead case and the facts of this case is narrated herein-below. 3. These writ petitions have been preferred for quashing the notification no. 3646 dated 23.06.2016, whereby, the services/appointments of the petitioners have been terminated on the ground of irregularities in the appointment procedure by some other persons, without giving any opportunity of being heard to the petitioners and in complete violation of the principles of natural justice and doctrine of segregation which professes that such candidates, who have successfully qualified and secured places in the final merit/select list without indulging in any misconduct or being beneficiary of any manipulation, cannot and should not be made to suffer. The petitioners have also prayed to hold and declare that the actions of the respondent authorities in terminating the petitioners, after appointment being made with due process of law, is wholly illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable and the same is unsustainable in the eyes of law. It is also prayed to direct the respondent authorities to forthwith reinstate the services of the petitioners as the petitioners have been terminated illegally. 4. When this matter was taken up on 19.11.2018 on the point of stay of Advertisement no. It is also prayed to direct the respondent authorities to forthwith reinstate the services of the petitioners as the petitioners have been terminated illegally. 4. When this matter was taken up on 19.11.2018 on the point of stay of Advertisement no. 1 of 2018, this Court observed that the State counsel on the basis of written instruction, as conveyed to him through Memo no. 1818 dated 30.10.2018 issued by the office of the Director General of Police, Jharkhand, submitted that the respondents have decided to keep 269 posts reserved and proceed for recruitment to the remaining posts i.e. 261 posts. These 269 posts relate to such persons including the petitioners whose services were terminated. As per the submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State, the interest of the petitioners was protected and in light of the stand taken by the respondent-Department, I.A. No. 7540 of 2018 was disposed of. 5. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that advertisement bearing Advertisement no. 1 of 2015 was issued under the seal and signature of the Commandants of Jharkhand Armed Police/Indian Reserve Battalion/State Industrial Security Force belonging to all districts of the State of Jharkhand inviting applications from the prospective candidates for filling up vacancies for appointment on the post of Cook, Water Carrier, Barber, Washer-man and Jharukash. The said advertisement is brought on record by Annexure-1. Pursuant to the above advertisement, the petitioners being eligible under the advertisement made their applications in the prescribed form within stipulated time for different posts such as Cook, Washer-man etc. and after scrutiny and examination of the academic qualifications, the eligible candidates including all the petitioners in these writ petitions were called for physical test. He further submits that after the physical test, petitioners were appeared in written examination and pursuant thereto, the petitioners were also called for practical and interview. He further submits that after completion of all the procedures for appointment i.e. submission of application form, physical test, written examination etc. final result was published on 31.03.2016 whereby and whereunder all the petitioners were declared successful. The final publication of result dated 31.03.2016 is annexed as Annexure-2. After publication of the result by way of an advertisement, respondent authorities directed all the successful candidates to appear before their respective Commandants along with the required documents on 06.04.2016. final result was published on 31.03.2016 whereby and whereunder all the petitioners were declared successful. The final publication of result dated 31.03.2016 is annexed as Annexure-2. After publication of the result by way of an advertisement, respondent authorities directed all the successful candidates to appear before their respective Commandants along with the required documents on 06.04.2016. The petitioners appeared before the Commandants along with the required documents and pursuant thereto, appointment letters were issued between 06.04.2016 and 11.04.2016 to all the petitioners providing the place of joining. The joining letters are brought on record as Annexure-4 series. After joining the services, the petitioners went through Arms Training and thereafter joined at the place of joining as directed by the respondent authorities and discharging their duties to the satisfaction of all concerned at different places across the State and they were receiving regular salary as well, but on one fine morning, by notification bearing notification no. 3646 dated 23.06.2016, the respondent authorities had terminated the services of all the appointees appointed under Advertisement no. 1 of 2015 with immediate effect on the ground of irregularities committed by few persons in the entire selection process. A recommendation vide letter dated 06.06.2016 was also issued to cancel all the appointments made under Advertisement no. 1 of 2015 upon an enquiry conducted behind the back of the petitioners. Thereafter, the services of the petitioners were terminated vide various termination letters, which are brought on record as Annexure-7 series. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners further submits that the petitioners in W.P. (S) No. 3976 of 2016 were reported to be worked over 17 months, whereas, rest of the petitioners in other writ petitions worked for 3/4 months. He further submits that no opportunity of being heard was provided to the petitioners and in a most arbitrary manner, the services of the petitioners have been terminated basing upon an enquiry conducted behind the back of the petitioners. He also submits that no allegations have been levelled against the petitioners. He further submits that an irregularity/illegal act committed by a group of person have been made general and the entire group has been treated to be as one group having involvement in the alleged irregularity, which is against the principles of doctrine of segregation. He also submits that no allegations have been levelled against the petitioners. He further submits that an irregularity/illegal act committed by a group of person have been made general and the entire group has been treated to be as one group having involvement in the alleged irregularity, which is against the principles of doctrine of segregation. He further submits that the respondent authority has completely misdirected itself in taking such an extreme and unreasonable decision by cancelling the entire selection, that too without issuing any show-cause notice and without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. He further submits that law is well settled in this regard that the candidates, who have been successfully qualified and secured places in the final select list, without indulging in any misconduct or being beneficiary of any manipulation, cannot and should not suffer. He further submits that the petitioners have been appointed after following due process of law and were declared successful after fulfilling all the eligibility criteria as enshrined in Advertisement no. 1 of 2015 and, therefore, treating the entire selection to be bad in law on the sole ground of irregularity by some other person is wholly arbitrary and unreasonable in the eyes of law. He also submits that the petitioners are not found to be involved in any misconduct or irregularity and as such terminating the petitioners without giving an opportunity of hearing and conducting an enquiry behind the back is unsustainable in the eyes of law. To substantiate his argument, he relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Inderpreet Singh Kahlon and Others vs. State of Punjab and Others, (2006) 11 SCC 356 . 6. Paragraphs 40, 41, 58, 59, 118, 124 and 125 of the said judgment are quoted herein- below: “40. We at the outset would furthermore notice that having regard to the submissions made before us by Mr. Dwivedi and Mr. Rao that the services of the appellants before us were terminated not in terms of the rules but in view of the commission of illegality in the selection process involved, we need not consider the applicability of the relevant provisions of the statutes as also the effect of the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. An appointment made in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India would be void. An appointment made in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India would be void. It would be a nullity. [Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi] But before such a finding can be arrived at, the appointing authority must take into consideration the foundational facts. Only when such foundational facts are established, the legal principles can be applied. 41. If the services of the appointees who had put in few years of service were terminated, compliance with three principles at the hands of the State was imperative viz. (1) to establish satisfaction in regard to the sufficiency of the materials collected so as to enable the State to arrive at its satisfaction that the selection process was tainted; (2) to determine the question that the illegalities committed go to the root of the matter which vitiate the entire selection process. Such satisfaction as also the sufficiency of materials were required to be gathered by reason of a thorough investigation in a fair and transparent manner and (3) whether the sufficient material present enabled the State to arrive at a satisfaction that the officers in majority have been found to be part of the fraudulent purpose or the system itself was corrupt. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 58. Contention of Mr. Dwivedi, as noticed hereinbefore, centres around condemnation of selection and not of the candidate. But, when the services of the employees are terminated inter alia on the ground that they might have aided and abated corruption and, thus, either for the sake of probity in governance or in public interest their services should be terminated, the court must satisfy itself that conditions therefor exist. The court while setting aside a selection may require the State to establish that the process was so tainted that the entire selection process is liable to be cancelled. We, however, do not agree with the submission of Mr. Dhavan that the decision of the Commission was collegiate in nature as it is well known that one of the members of the Commission was biased, other members could also be influenced by him. (Ajay Hasia vs. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi) 59. In a case of this nature, thus, the question which requires serious consideration is as to whether due to the misdeed of some candidates, honest and meritorious candidates should also suffer. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 118. (Ajay Hasia vs. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi) 59. In a case of this nature, thus, the question which requires serious consideration is as to whether due to the misdeed of some candidates, honest and meritorious candidates should also suffer. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 118. Undoubtedly, in the selection process, there have been manipulations and irregularities at the behest of R.S. Sidhu, the then Chairman, Punjab Public Service Commission. On a careful scrutiny of the facts and circumstances of the case, in my considered opinion, the High Court ought to have made a serious endeavour to segregate the tainted from the non-tainted candidates. Though the task was certainly difficult, but by no stretch of imagination, was it an impossible task. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 124. The High Court has not considered the case in the proper perspective. The consequences of en masse cancellation would carry a big stigma particularly on cancellation of the selections which took place because of serious charges of corruption. The question arises whether for the misdeeds of some candidates, honest and good candidates should also suffer on en masse cancellation leading to termination of their services? Should those honest candidates be compelled to suffer without there being any fault on their part just because the respondents find it difficult to segregate the cases of tainted candidates from the other candidates? The task may be difficult for the respondents, but in my considered view, in the interest of all concerned and particularly in the interest of honest candidates, the State must undertake this task. The unscrupulous candidates should not be allowed to damage the entire system in such a manner where innocent people also suffer great ignominy and stigma. 125. This Court had an occasion to examine a similar controversy in Onkar Lal Bajaj case. In that case, there were serious allegations of political patronage in allotment of retail outlets of petroleum products (LPG distributorships and SKO-LDO dealerships). This Court laid down that how could a large number of candidates against whom there was not even insinuation be clubbed with a handful of those who were said to have been allotted dealerships/distributorships on account of political connection and patronage? This Court clearly stated that the two were clearly unequals. Equal treatment to un-equals is nothing but inequality. This is the most important principle which has been laid down in this case by this Court. This Court clearly stated that the two were clearly unequals. Equal treatment to un-equals is nothing but inequality. This is the most important principle which has been laid down in this case by this Court. The Court further observed that to put both the categories, tainted and the rest, on a par is wholly unjustified, arbitrary and unconstitutional, being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. In somewhat similar circumstances, in this case, the Government, instead of discharging its obligation, unjustly resorted to the cancellation of all the allotments en masse by treating unequals as equals without even prima facie examining their cases. Those officers whose services were affected because of en masse cancellation have not been given an opportunity to represent before the authorities concerned. In Onkar Lal Bajaj there were 413 cases and the task was indeed difficult to segregate the cases of political connection and patronage with other cases. But, even then, this Court, while setting aside the order of the Government cancelling the allotment, appointed a committee of two retired Judges, one of this Court and another from the Delhi High Court, and they were requested to examine all 413 cases and decide the matter after getting the report from that committee appointed by the Court.” 7. By way of referring this judgment, he submits that in the facts and circumstances of these cases, the respondents were not justified in cancelling the entire selection of the petitioners, who are said to be 269 in numbers. He further relied upon the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Krishnaji and Others vs. State of Jharkhand and Others, 2007 (1) JCR 1 . 8. Paragraph 11 of the said judgment is quoted herein-below: “11. These cases were referred to the Division Bench in view of the judgment of Apex Court in Union of India vs. Rajesh P.U. Puthuvalnikathu, (2003) 7 SCC 285 . 8. Paragraph 11 of the said judgment is quoted herein-below: “11. These cases were referred to the Division Bench in view of the judgment of Apex Court in Union of India vs. Rajesh P.U. Puthuvalnikathu, (2003) 7 SCC 285 . It is useful to notice the relevant observations in the aforesaid judgment which reads as under: “In addition thereto, it appears that the Special Committee has extensively scrutinized and reviewed the situation by reevaluating the answer-sheets of all the 134 successful as well as the 184 unsuccessful candidates and ultimately found that except 31 candidates found to have been declared successful though they were not really entitled to be so declared successful and selected for appointment there was no infirmity, whatsoever in the selection of the other successful candidates than the 31 identified by the Special Committee. 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 an 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 the other 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 any one or other reasons. Applying a unilaterally rigid and arbitrary standard to cancel the entirety of the selections despite the firm and positive information that except 31 of such selected candidates, no infirmity could be found with reference to others, is nothing but total disregard of relevancies and allowing to be carried away by irrelevancies, giving a complete go-by to contextual considerations throwing to the winds the principle of proportionality in going farther than what was strictly and reasonably to meet the situation. In short, the competent authority completely misdirected itself in taking such an extreme and unreasonable decision of cancelling 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.” 9. In short, the competent authority completely misdirected itself in taking such an extreme and unreasonable decision of cancelling 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.” 9. He further submits that the competent authority completely misdirected itself in taking such an extreme and unreasonable decision of cancelling the entire selection, which is wholly unwarranted and unnecessary even in the factual situation involved in this case. To substantiate his argument, he relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rajesh P.U. Puthuvalnikathu, (2003) 7 SCC 285 . 10. Paragraph 6 of the said judgment is quoted herein-below: “6. On a careful consideration of the contentions on either side in the light of the materials brought on record, including the relevant portions of the report said to have been submitted by the Special Committee constituted for the purpose of inquiring into the irregularities, if any, in the selection of candidates, filed on our directions - which report itself seems to have been also produced for the perusal of the High Court - there appears to be no scope for any legitimate grievance against the decision rendered by the High Court. There seems to be no serious grievance of any malpractices as such in the process of the written examination - either by the candidates or by those who actually conducted them. If the Board itself decided to dictate the questions on a loudspeaker in English and Hindi and none of the participants had any grievance in understanding them or answering them, there is no justification to surmise at a later stage that the time lapse in dictating them in different languages left any room or scope for the candidates to discuss among them the possible answers. The posting of invigilators for every ten candidates would belie any such assumptions. Even that apart, the Special Committee constituted does not appear to have condemned that part of the selection process relating to conduct of the written examination itself, except noticing only certain infirmities only in the matter of evaluation of answer-sheets with reference to correct answers and allotment of marks to answers of some of the questions. Even that apart, the Special Committee constituted does not appear to have condemned that part of the selection process relating to conduct of the written examination itself, except noticing only certain infirmities only in the matter of evaluation of answer-sheets with reference to correct answers and allotment of marks to answers of some of the questions. In addition thereto, it appears that the Special Committee has extensively scrutinized and reviewed the situation by re-evaluating the answer-sheets of all the 134 successful as well as the 184 unsuccessful candidates and ultimately found that except 31 candidates found to have been declared successful though they were not really entitled to be so declared successful and selected for appointment there was no infirmity whatsoever in the selection of the other successful candidates than the 31 identified by the Special Committee. 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 an 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 the other 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 any one or the other reasons. Applying a unilaterally rigid and arbitrary standard to cancel the entirety of the selections despite the firm and positive information that except 31 of such selected candidates, no infirmity could be found with reference to others, is nothing but total disregard of relevancies and allowing to be carried away by irrelevancies, giving a complete go-by to contextual considerations throwing to the winds the principle of proportionality in going farther than what was strictly and reasonably to meet the situation. In short, the competent authority completely misdirected itself in taking such an extreme and unreasonable decision of cancelling 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.” 11. On the basis of above arguments, Mr. On the basis of above arguments, Mr. Rajiv Ranjan submits that the impugned order passed by the respondent authorities are not sustainable as it has been passed without considering the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases referred supra. 12. Some additional points are argued by Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P. (S) No. 5638 of 2017. By way of referring the impugned order, Mr. Das submits that there is no mention of Jharukash in the proposed termination and that is why the authorities concerned have sought clarification from their superior as to whether Jharukash are also included in mass termination or not and later on it has been communicated that Jharukash are also included in mass termination and on this ground, he argues that the impugned orders in W.P. (S) No. 3976 of 2016 and other matters, cannot apply with regard to the petitioners in W.P. (S) No. 5638 of 2017, who are appointed on the post of Jharukash. By way of referring Annexure-3 of W.P. (S) No. 5638 of 2017, he submits that the petitioners in this case were provided identity card by the Department and without following due process of law and without following the principles of natural justice, the services of the petitioners have been terminated. Mr. Das relied upon the case rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajendra vs. State of Maharashtra, (2008) 11 SCC 90 . 13. Paragraph 14 of the said judgment is quoted herein-below: “14. It is really strange that it should have dawned on the second respondent that the approval granted earlier was wrongly given only after 17 months. It was not as if the appointment was made keeping the second respondent in dark about it. The second respondent was informed by the letter dated 7-2-2001 about the advertisement given as also the appointment made. Along with this communication dated 7-2-2001, the Managing Committee had sent the proposal in the proper form and the other papers regarding the whole selection process starting from the advertisement to the list of employees. This also included a copy of the roster which would have given the complete idea to the second respondent about the nature of the post as also the manner in which the appellant came to be selected. This also included a copy of the roster which would have given the complete idea to the second respondent about the nature of the post as also the manner in which the appellant came to be selected. In pursuance of the above communication the approval came to be granted by the second respondent by its Order dated 17-3-2000. Therefore, the action taken after about 17 months on 30-5-2002 of withdrawing the approval appears to be high-handed. The only reason given in the communication dated 30-5-2002 is that the appointment made on 17-3-2001 is unlawful and is completely against the settled position of law and, therefore, it stood cancelled. In our opinion this is a totally incorrect action on the part of the authorities. No reasons have been given in this order. Very strangely even the subsequent letters sent on behalf of the appellant and the Managing Committee of the School were also not replied to nor were the reasons informed. We totally disapprove of this abrupt action and that too without hearing the petitioner and further not giving the reasons for the same.” 14. He further relied upon the case rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahipal Singh Tomar vs. State of U.P. (2013) 16 SCC 771. 15. Paragraph 15 of the said judgment is quoted herein-below: “15. The learned counsel for Respondent 1 contended that there was no fault on her part. It was also stated that though the authorities asserted that a communication was sent to Respondent 1 at the address supplied by her, she had never received such so-called communication. It was also urged that the address at which the communication was sent was not correct address. It was only because of the fact that there was no communication by the Director of Higher Education that constrained Respondent 1 to approach him as to what had happened to her appointment though she was at Serial No. 1 in the wait list. Only at that time she was informed about the order of appointment and her placement in Meerut College but since she did not join duty, other person was appointed. Only at that time she was informed about the order of appointment and her placement in Meerut College but since she did not join duty, other person was appointed. Precisely because of subsequent development that Respondent 1 approached C.M.P. College, Allahabad and obtained “no-objection certificate” from the management of that College the High Court, submitted the counsel, believed the case of Respondent 1 and granted relief observing that it was the mistake of the authorities for which the candidate should not suffer.” 16. He further submits that the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahipal Singh Tomar (supra) was not followed before issuing the impugned order. He also relied upon the case rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Munna Roy vs. Union of India, (2000) 9 SCC 283 . 17. Paragraph 2 of the said judgment is quoted herein-below: “2. The appellant, pursuant to an advertisement issued by the Railway Recruitment Board for the post of Craft Teacher (Bengali medium), applied for the same. She possesses qualification of a graduate. On the basis of a written test held thereafter, she was successful, and then was called for the interview. But after the interview was over and a select list was published wherein her name also appeared but as no appointment letter was issued, she moved the Central Administrative Tribunal. While the application was pending before the Tribunal, the Railway Recruitment Board cancelled the panel by order dated 5-9-1996 on the ground that there has been sufficient irregularities in the matter of selection. The appellant, therefore, filed an application before the Tribunal for setting aside the order of cancellation and directing the Board to complete the recruitment process. The Tribunal allowed the said application. Against the order of the Tribunal, the matter was taken to the High Court and the High Court having interfered with the order of the Tribunal, the appellant has approached this Court. The High Court while interfering with the order of the Tribunal, has taken into consideration the fact that mere inclusion of a person’s name in the list does not confer any right and therefore mandamus cannot be issued. The aforesaid enunciation as a proposition of law cannot be disputed. The High Court while interfering with the order of the Tribunal, has taken into consideration the fact that mere inclusion of a person’s name in the list does not confer any right and therefore mandamus cannot be issued. The aforesaid enunciation as a proposition of law cannot be disputed. However, if the administrative authority takes a decision and the reasons for such decision are erroneous then such a decision can be interfered with by a court of law. In the case in hand the appellant pursuant to an advertisement had applied for and she had the requisite qualification. She became successful in the written test as well as in the viva voce. The list of successful candidates included her name but the ground for cancellation of the entire list without even informing the applicant was that though the minimum qualification required was a matriculate she was a graduate and thus dubious method has been adopted for being selected. We really fail to understand that if a candidate possesses a qualification higher than the required qualification and the advertisement itself had prescribed the same then how can the authority come to a conclusion that selection has been made by adopting a dubious method. In the aforesaid premises, we have no hesitation to come to a conclusion that the reasons which weighed with the authorities to quash the selection are not germane and must be held to be arbitrary and irrational. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order of the High Court as well as the order of the authorities concerned quashing the selection panel and direct that the order of the Tribunal be implemented.” 18. While relying on the aforesaid judgments, Mr. Das submits that the impugned order is not sustainable as it has been issued without any show-cause and without following the principles of natural justice. 19. Per contra, Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned Advocate General appearing for the respondent- State of Jharkhand submits that the fact finding 3 Men Enquiry Committee found irregularities in the selection process and that is why the Department concerned was compelled to take such decision. Mr. Ajit Kumar heavily relied upon Annexure-B, which has been brought on record by way of counter affidavit and submits that the fact finding 3 Men Enquiry Committee has elaborately considered the fact and submitted their report that irregularity in selection process was taken place. Mr. Mr. Ajit Kumar heavily relied upon Annexure-B, which has been brought on record by way of counter affidavit and submits that the fact finding 3 Men Enquiry Committee has elaborately considered the fact and submitted their report that irregularity in selection process was taken place. Mr. Ajit Kumar further refers to Annexure-A, which has been brought on record by way of supplementary counter affidavit and submits that the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand Armed Police, Ranchi constituted Committee for enquiry regarding irregularities in the selection process of the advertisement bearing Advertisement no. 1 of 2015 for appointment to the post of Cook, Water Carrier, Barber, Washer-man etc. in Jharkhand Armed Police/Indian Reserve Battalion/State Industrial Security Force. He further submits that 3 Men Enquiry Committee headed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand Armed Police, Ranchi found irregularities in the appointment and has submitted their elaborate report of 22 pages to the Additional Director General of Police, wherein, detailed enquiry has been recorded. He further submits that in view of this enquiry report, it is not possible to segregate the beneficiary, who were appointed by way of the said advertisement and that is why the State has taken such decision. Mr. Ajit Kumar further submits that by way of enquiry report, several factors were also considered by the Committee that the Chairman of the Selection Board has provided 60 marks and rest of the Members were asked to provide only 20 marks and that is why it is not possible to segregate the persons, who were benefited by way of such manipulation by some of the persons. He further submits that the Chairman of the Selection Board has lodged the F.I.R. against the middleman saying that he is not having any connection with the middle man, but in course of evidence, it transpires that he was having connection with the middleman. He relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Inderpreet Singh Kahlon vs. State of Punjab, (2006) 11 SCC 356 . 20. Paragraphs 40, 41, 50, 51, 58 and 59 of the said judgment are quoted herein-below: “40. We at the outset would furthermore notice that having regard to the submissions made before us by Mr. Dwivedi and Mr. 20. Paragraphs 40, 41, 50, 51, 58 and 59 of the said judgment are quoted herein-below: “40. We at the outset would furthermore notice that having regard to the submissions made before us by Mr. Dwivedi and Mr. Rao that the services of the appellants before us were terminated not in terms of the rules but in view of the commission of illegality in the selection process involved, we need not consider the applicability of the relevant provisions of the statutes as also the effect of the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. An appointment made in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India would be void. It would be a nullity. [Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi] But before such a finding can be arrived at, the appointing authority must take into consideration the foundational facts. Only when such foundational facts are established, the legal principles can be applied. 41. If the services of the appointees who had put in few years of service were terminated, compliance with three principles at the hands of the State was imperative viz. (1) to establish satisfaction in regard to the sufficiency of the materials collected so as to enable the State to arrive at its satisfaction that the selection process was tainted; (2) to determine the question that the illegalities committed go to the root of the matter which vitiate the entire selection process. Such satisfaction as also the sufficiency of materials were required to be gathered by reason of a thorough investigation in a fair and transparent manner and (3) whether the sufficient material present enabled the State to arrive at a satisfaction that the officers in majority have been found to be part of the fraudulent purpose or the system itself was corrupt. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 50. In those cases also tainted cases were separated from the non-tainted cases. Only, thus, in the event it is found to be impossible or highly improbable, could en masse orders of termination have been issued. 51. Both the State Government as also the High Court in that view of the matter should have made all endeavours to segregate the tainted from the non-tainted candidates. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 58. Contention of Mr. Dwivedi, as noticed hereinbefore, centres around condemnation of selection and not of the candidate. 51. Both the State Government as also the High Court in that view of the matter should have made all endeavours to segregate the tainted from the non-tainted candidates. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 58. Contention of Mr. Dwivedi, as noticed hereinbefore, centres around condemnation of selection and not of the candidate. But, when the services of the employees are terminated inter alia on the ground that they might have aided and abated corruption and, thus, either for the sake of probity in governance or in public interest their services should be terminated, the court must satisfy itself that conditions therefor exist. The court while setting aside a selection may require the State to establish that the process was so tainted that the entire selection process is liable to be cancelled. We, however, do not agree with the submission of Mr. Dhavan that the decision of the Commission was collegiate in nature as it is well known that one of the members of the Commission was biased, other members could also be influenced by him. (Ajay Hasia vs. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi) 59. In a case of this nature, thus, the question which requires serious consideration is as to whether due to the misdeed of some candidates, honest and meritorious candidates should also suffer.” 21. By way of referring the said judgment, Mr. Ajit Kumar submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court also considered this aspect of the matter that the cases, which were tainted must be separated from non-tainted cases and that too in the event it is found to be impossible or highly improbable, could en masse orders of termination have been issued. Relying on the aforesaid judgment, he submits that in view of the Enquiry Committee report, the State was not in a position to segregate the cases of the petitioners and that is why the impugned order has been passed and as such there is no illegality in issuing the impugned order. He further submits that so far as the argument canvassed by Mr. Amit Kumar Das in W.P. (S) No. 5638 of 2017 is concerned, that is not tenable. He submits that the report dated 14.05.2016, which is annexed as Annexure-A to the supplementary counter affidavit, also includes Jharukash and in 269 appointments, Jharukash are also included that is why the argument of Mr. Amit Kumar Das in W.P. (S) No. 5638 of 2017 is concerned, that is not tenable. He submits that the report dated 14.05.2016, which is annexed as Annexure-A to the supplementary counter affidavit, also includes Jharukash and in 269 appointments, Jharukash are also included that is why the argument of Mr. Das in W.P. (S) No. 5638 of 2017 has no leg to stand as the appointment of 269 candidates also includes Jharukash. 22. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court has perused Annexure-A contained in supplementary counter affidavit and finds that 3 Men Enquiry Committee came to the finding that some transaction was taken place with regard to Advertisement no. 2 of 2011, whereas, it is a case of Advertisement no. 1 of 2015. This Court also finds that the statement of other member of the Selection Committee was recorded and it was said that the Chairman was in the campus of Hotwar, Ranchi from 07:00 a.m. onwards till past 07:00 p.m. on 13.01.2016 in the conclusion of 3 Men Enquiry Committee. This Court further finds that 3 Men Enquiry Committee also came to the conclusion that the statements of Satya Deo Yadav, Phul Kumari Devi and Madan Pandey are not matching with each other. This Court further finds that there is no allegation of any transaction with regard to the petitioners. The fact finding 3 Men Enquiry Committee has also not lodged any complaint against the petitioners in this regard. This Court further finds that pursuant to the advertisement, due process of selection was taken place, wherein, the petitioners were put on physical test, written test, practical and interview in terms of the advertisement and, thereafter, they have been selected for appointment on those posts. This Court further finds that after the appointment of the petitioners, they have already joined and worked on different places and without issuing any show-cause and without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, the impugned order was passed, which is in teeth of violation of principles of Audi alteram partem. This Court further finds that the petitioners, who were not involved in manipulation and against them there is no allegation of such manipulation, cannot be allowed to suffer. It was incumbent for the State to segregate the cases of such persons and to take action against those persons, who have committed illegality. This Court further finds that the petitioners, who were not involved in manipulation and against them there is no allegation of such manipulation, cannot be allowed to suffer. It was incumbent for the State to segregate the cases of such persons and to take action against those persons, who have committed illegality. The selection of all the candidates cannot be cancelled where other beneficiaries are short listed and also identified. The doctrine of proportionality are to be applied in such cases. The petitioners should not be compelled to suffer without there being any fault on their part just because the respondents find it difficult to segregate their cases. The task may be difficult for the respondents, but in my considered view, in the interest of all concerned more particularly in the interest of the petitioners, who have no fault, the State must undertake this task. The impugned order of termination is stigmatic in nature and the same could not have been passed without giving the petitioners an opportunity of explaining their position. This Court has got no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the respondent authorities in coming to such decision have acted in haste which are against the well settled principles and the same must be held to be arbitrary and irrational. This Court further comes to a conclusion that the impugned orders are an ex cathedra announcement and, accordingly, the impugned order cannot sustain in the eyes of law. Accordingly, impugned orders dated 23.06.2016 in W.P. (S) Nos. 3976 of 2016, 3611 of 2016, 3974 of 2016 and 3975 of 2016 and impugned order dated 08.04.2017 in W.P. (S) No. 5638 of 2017 and impugned order dated 05.07.2016 in W.P. (S) No. 4025 of 2016 are quashed. The State is directed to reinstate all the petitioners on their original posts with all consequential benefits and, thereafter, if so advised, examine each case separately on its own merit and proceed accordingly. 23. Accordingly, the writ petitions stand allowed and disposed of. 24. I.A. No. 7975 of 2018 also stands disposed of, in view of final order passed in the writ petitions.