JUDGMENT : AKULA VENKATA SESHA SAI, J. 1. This writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenges order dated 18.12.2014 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (hereinafter called as 'the Tribunal') in Original Application No. 5963 of 2014. 2. The facts, in brief, leading to filing of the present case are as follows: 2A. State Forest Department issued a Notification dated 1.12.2007 inviting applications from eligible and qualified candidates for recruitment to 5 posts of Technical Assistants (Draughtsman Grade-II). In response to the said Notification, respondents 1 to 3 herein/applicants submitted applications alongwith others. Thereafter, on 24.1.2008, respondents 1 to 3/applicants were appointed as Technical Assistants. 2B. The Conservator of Forests-petitioner No. 1, issued a show-cause notice bearing Rc. No. 3633/2010/M1, dated 12.8.2010, by pointing out the following alleged irregularities, which, according to the Department, took place during the process of the said selection. "1. The Post of Draughtsman Grade-II is governed by the "Andhra Pradesh Forest Subordinate Service Rules 2000" notified vide G.O. Ms. No. 88, EFS & T Department dated 19.7.2000. Rule 14 of the rules prescribed the method of selection. For the post of Draughtsman Grade-II, the selection is based on performance in written examination and interview. The following two papers of two hours duration are prescribed for selection of candidates by direct recruitment; (a) One is Essay writing (in English or Telugu or Urdu); (b) Other in General Knowledge and mathematics (to be answered in English or Telugu or Urdu). A minimum of 35% marks in each subject but an aggregate of 40% in total is required. Whereas the written examination was conducted only in one paper comprising of Mathematics and General Knowledge for 100 marks with a duration of (3) hours. 2. Candidates were called for interview even though they have not secured minimum qualifying marks. Out of 15 candidates called for interview, only two secured qualifying marks namely Sri P. Sreenu and Sri P.A. Murthujavali. 3. It is also observed that, against (5) vacancies, (15) candidates were called for interview. Records do not disclose how candidates were shortlisted. Calling the candidates in the ratio of 1:3 is also not contemplated anywhere. 4. Persons who secured more marks were not called for interview while calling the persons with lower marks, as shown hereunder: Sl. 3. It is also observed that, against (5) vacancies, (15) candidates were called for interview. Records do not disclose how candidates were shortlisted. Calling the candidates in the ratio of 1:3 is also not contemplated anywhere. 4. Persons who secured more marks were not called for interview while calling the persons with lower marks, as shown hereunder: Sl. No. Name of the persons to be called for interview Name of the persons called for interview 1. Sri. G. Kirankumar (SC) (Marks 28.5) M. Revanshi (SC-C) (Marks-20) 2. Sri. K. Vijayadu (SC) (Marks-22) Sri Venkata Rama Raja Nail (ST) (Marks-13) 5. Out of the five candidates selected as mentioned hereunder, except one, none of the candidates secured minimum percentage even after adding the marks secured in the interview. Sl. No. Name of the candidate Hall Ticket No. Selected against Roster Point Marks obtained in written test Marks obtained in interview Total Marks obtained 1. Penukonda Sreenu (ST) 069 31 OC(G) 78.50 6.33 84.83 2. P. Venkata Lakshmamma (OC) 075 30 OC(G) 29.00 7.00 36.00 3. D. Mamatha (OC) 043 34 OC(W) 25.00 7.00 32.00 4. N. Venu Gopal (BC-A) 056 29BC(A) 20.50 6.33 26.83 5. K. Ramanjaneyulu (ST) 088 33 ST(G) 15.00 7.33 22.33 These irregularities are grave and vitiate the entire selection." 2C. As against the said show-cause notice dated 12.8.2010, respondents 1 to 3 herein filed Original Application No. 5573 of 2010 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by way of an order dated 12.4.2013, allowed said original application, setting aside the impugned show-cause notice dated 12.8.2010. Questioning the said order, the Department carried the matter in Writ Petition No. 24514 of 2014 before this Court. This Court, on 26.8.2014 in WPMP No. 30717 of 2014, granted interim suspension of the order passed by the Tribunal, and the said writ petition is still pending. 2D. It is also to be noted that in response to the show-cause notice dated 12.8.2010, respondents 1 to 3 herein submitted their explanations on 26.8.2010. Thereafter, the Conservator of Forests-1st petitioner passed order vide Rc. No. 5024/2014-Ml, dated 28.9.2014, terminating respondents 1 to 3 herein from service. Assailing the validity and legal sustainability of the said order of termination, respondents 1 to 3 herein filed Original Application No. 5963 of 2014 before the Tribunal. Thereafter, the Conservator of Forests-1st petitioner passed order vide Rc. No. 5024/2014-Ml, dated 28.9.2014, terminating respondents 1 to 3 herein from service. Assailing the validity and legal sustainability of the said order of termination, respondents 1 to 3 herein filed Original Application No. 5963 of 2014 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, on 18.12.2014, allowed the said original application, setting aside the order of termination dated 28.9.2014 passed by the Conservator of Forests-1st petitioner. In the present writ petition, challenge is to the abovesaid order passed by the Tribunal. 3. This Court, on 31.3.2015 vide order in WPMP No. 672 of 2015, suspended operation of the order of the Tribunal to the extent of respondents 2 and 3 herein, while observing that the order of the Tribunal insofar as it relates to respondent No. 1 would be subject to further orders in the said WPMP. 4. Heard the learned Government Pleader representing the State on behalf of the petitioners and Sri P.V. Ramana, learned Counsel for respondents 1 to 3/applicants before the Tribunal, apart from perusing the material available before the Court. Though the vacate application is coming up before this Court, with the consent of the respective Counsel, this Court proposes to adjudicate the issue finally. 5. It is contended by the learned Government Pleader that questioned order passed by the Tribunal is highly erroneous, contrary to law and not in consonance with the material available on record. In elaboration, it is maintained by the learned Government Pleader that since the process of selection pursuant to the Notification dated 1.12.2007 went on, in an irregular and illegal manner and contrary to Rule 14 of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Subordinate Service Rules, 2000 notified vide G.O. Ms. No. 88, Environment Forest Science & Technology (FOR.IV) Department, dated 19.7.2000, the order of termination dated 28.9.2014, by any stretch of imagination, cannot be faulted, and that the authorities are perfectly justified in passing the said order having regard to the irregularities that took place during the process of selection. No. 88, Environment Forest Science & Technology (FOR.IV) Department, dated 19.7.2000, the order of termination dated 28.9.2014, by any stretch of imagination, cannot be faulted, and that the authorities are perfectly justified in passing the said order having regard to the irregularities that took place during the process of selection. It is also the submission of the learned Government Pleader that against the employees responsible for the said irregularities viz., Smt. K. Jana Bai, Smt. B.N. Sandhya and Sri R.U. Kashappa, disciplinary proceedings were initiated by issuing articles of charges on 27.9.2010, and that against Smt. K. Jana Bai and Smt. B.N. Sandhya, punishment of deferment of one increment with cumulative effect was awarded, and against said Sri R.U. Kashappa, the proceedings were dropped. In support of his submissions and contentions, the learned Government Pleader placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Hitendra Singh Bhupendrasingh v. Dr. P.D. Krishi Vidyapeeth and others, (2014) 8 SCC 369 . 6. On the contrary, it is contended by the learned Counsel for respondents 1 to 3 (applicants) that there is no error, nor there exists any infirmity, in the impugned order in the writ petition, and in the absence of the same, the questioned order is not amenable to any judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is also the submission of the learned Counsel that the very appointments were questioned by one A.P. Murutuja Valli before the Tribunal by filing Original Application No. 3483 of 2008 wherein the petitioners herein, who were arrayed as respondents, categorically supported and justified the process of selection, which eventually resulted in dismissal of the said original application by way of order dated 10.12.2009, and that Writ Petition No. 10748 of 2010, filed against the said order, was also dismissed by this Court. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel that though respondents 1 to 3 submitted explanations/replies to the show-cause notice, contents of the said explanations were not taken into consideration by the petitioners-authorities while passing the impugned order. It is also the submission of the learned Counsel that petitioner No. 2 herein viz., the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Andhra Pradesh, was virtually swayed away by the report of petitioner No. 1 herein, and passed order Ref.No. 27817/2010-T2, dated 20.7.2010. It is also the submission of the learned Counsel that petitioner No. 2 herein viz., the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Andhra Pradesh, was virtually swayed away by the report of petitioner No. 1 herein, and passed order Ref.No. 27817/2010-T2, dated 20.7.2010. It is further maintained by the learned Counsel that since the subject post is Technical Assistant, which falls under category (3) of Class-B, the second step which stipulates the test of walking 25 KM is not intended for the post in question having regard to Rule 14 of the said Rules. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that after completion of the process of selection, the authorities did shortlist 15 candidates for the purpose of interview viz., in the ratio of 1:3. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel that after lapse of long time, the respondents 1 to 3/applicants cannot be disturbed, and that in the absence of any allegation of fraud, mala fides, malpractices, nepotism or serious infirmities in the process of selection, the respondents 1 to 3/applicants cannot be penalized for no fault of them. To bolster his submission and contentions, the learned Counsel for respondents 1 to 3/applicants takes the support of the following decisions. (i) Vikas Pratap Singh and others v. State of Chhattisgarh and others, (2013) 14 SCC 494 ; (ii) Rajesh Kumar and others v. State of Bihar and others, (2013) 4 SCC 690 ; (iii) Tejinder Kaur and others v. Lady Constable Raj Kumari and others, (2009) 1 SCC 177 ; (iv) Sanjay Singh and another v. U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad and another, (2007) 1 SCC 870 and (v) Satish Rawat v. Union of India and others, (2002) 7 SCC 29 . 7. In the above background, now, the issues that emerge for consideration of this Court are-(1) Whether the questioned order dated 18.12.2014 passed by the Tribunal in OANo. 5963 of 2014 is sustainable and tenable, in the light of the submissions made by the learned Government Pleader and the learned Counsel for respondents 1 to 3/applicants? and (2) Whether the order impugned is amenable for any judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? 8. and (2) Whether the order impugned is amenable for any judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? 8. There is absolutely no dispute with regard to factum of the issuance of Notification for recruitment to 5 posts of Technical Assistants (Draughtsman Grade-II), the appointment of respondents 1 to 3/applicants on 24.1.2008 and their continuation thereafter in the said posts, the issuance of show-cause notice, the submission of explanations by the respondents 1 to 3/applicants, the filing of Original Application No. 5573 of 2010 before the Tribunal and the passing of order dated 12.4.2013 by the Tribunal. It is also not in dispute that respondents 1 to 3/applicants continued in service till the date of termination. 9. In order to consider the principal contention advanced by the learned Government Pleader that as the selection took place contrary to the Rules, continuation of the respondents 1 to 3/applicants would not enure to the benefit of the respondents 1 to 3/applicants, it would be appropriate to refer to the judgment cited by the leaned Government Pleader in Hitendra Singh Bhupendrasingh's case (supra), wherein at Paragraph Nos. 4, 5, 8, 23 to 26, the Hon'ble Apex Court held thus: "4. Several complaints appear to have been made against the selection process and the resultant appointments made by the University. Some of these complaints were in the form of writ petitions filed before the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur while some others were addressed to His Excellency, the Governor of Maharashtra who happens to be the Chancellor of the University. Out of the writ petitions filed against the selection and appointment process, Writ Petition No. 4771 of 2006 inter alia prayed for a direction to the Chancellor to institute an inquiry under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Agriculture Universities (Krishi Vidyapeeth) Act, 1983 in regard to the illegalities and irregularities committed in the selection and consequent appointments against the vacancies referred to above. By an order dated 21st April, 2007 passed by the High Court in the said petition, the Chancellor was directed to take a decision in the matter on or before the 14th August, 2007. Two other writ petitions were similarly filed before the High Court of Nagpur challenging the selection and appointment process. By an order dated 21st April, 2007 passed by the High Court in the said petition, the Chancellor was directed to take a decision in the matter on or before the 14th August, 2007. Two other writ petitions were similarly filed before the High Court of Nagpur challenging the selection and appointment process. In Writ Petition No. 342 of 2006 filed by Shri H.S. Bache, the High Court passed an interim order to the effect that the selection of the candidates shall remain stayed subject to the further orders of the Court. Writ Petition No. 905 of 2006 filed by Archana Bipte and another also assailed the validity of the selection and appointment process undertaken by the University on several grounds. 5. It was in the above backdrop that the Chancellor invoked his powers under Section 11(1) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Universities Act, 1983 and appointed Mr. Justice H.W. Dhabe, a former Judge of the High Court of Bombay to examine the papers relating to the selection and appointment of the candidates concerned against the posts referred to above and to submit a report to the Chancellor as to the fairness of the selection of the candidates appointed by the University. A reading of the order passed by the Chancellor would show that apart from several allegations made by Dr. B.G. Bhathakal, Ex-Vice Chancellor of the University and four others, the Chancellor had before him, a report dated 8th November, 2006 submitted by the Director General MCAER Pune from which the Chancellor noticed several irregularities allegedly committed in the process of selection such as violation of Statute 52, holding of common interviews for both Senior and Junior Research Assistants, appointing meritorious candidates from the reserved category seats instead of appointing them in the open merit category, selection of as many as 22 relatives of officers/employees of the University, absence of any shortlisting of candidates for purposes of interview even when the applications were far in excess of the advertised vacancies. There were also allegations of the selection process not being transparent apart from allegations to the effect that the norms for academic evaluation and viva voce examination had been flouted. 8. There were also allegations of the selection process not being transparent apart from allegations to the effect that the norms for academic evaluation and viva voce examination had been flouted. 8. Justice Dhabe Committee took nearly 3-1/2 years to complete the inquiry and to submit its report to the Chancellor in which the entire process of selection and appointment came under severe criticism questioning the fairness of the selection process and the resultant appointments. The High Court has summed up the substance of the findings and conclusions arrived at by Justice Dhabe in the following words: (1) As large numbers of candidates were called for interview, without following proper ratio as prescribed by the State Government, it has led to selection of undeserving and less meritorious candidates by manipulation, favouritism and other malpractices etc. (2) Although the posts of SRA and JRA belonged to two separate cadres with different pay scales, different qualifications and duties and responsibilities, the Selection Committee held common interviews for the said posts and vitiated the selection of the candidates as their suitability could not have been properly judged in such interviews for the said posts. (3) The criteria for assessment of the candidates for the posts of SRA/JRA were illegal. (4) The Selection Committee has awarded marks for Ph.D. Thesis submitted, research papers/popular articles published and significant contribution made after the last date of application i.e., 15.9.2004 by resorting to illegal marking system. (5) The Selection Committee gave higher weightage to the performance in interview as compared to academic performance. (6) The procedure followed by the Selection Committee for awarding marks to the candidates for academic performance and performance in interview was illegal and invalid. (7) There was tinkering in mark sheets of the candidates. In some of the cases the mark sheets were not prepared in the meeting of the Selection Committee and they were also not placed before any of its meeting for its consideration and approval. (8) The Chairman and the Member Secretary of the Selection Committee on their own without any authority or power in them increased the number of posts of SRA and JRA to be filled in. (9) Category wise distribution of 55 posts of SRA and 76 posts of JRA was not made according to the prescribed percentage for each of the backward classes and open category as per the relevant GRs. (9) Category wise distribution of 55 posts of SRA and 76 posts of JRA was not made according to the prescribed percentage for each of the backward classes and open category as per the relevant GRs. (10) The selection lists for the posts of SRA and JRA were not prepared or considered and approved in the meeting of the Selection Committee. There were lacunae, deficiencies, illegalities and irregularities in preparation of the selection list. (11) Though in the advertisement it was specifically provided for wait lists to be prepared for the near future vacancies, no wait lists were prepared by the Selection Committee. (12) The Selection Committee did not discharge any of its "duties and responsibilities in the selection process. (13) The entire selection process and selection of candidates pursuant thereto for the posts of SRA and JRA is vitiated by bias of Dr. V.D. Patil, Chairman of the Selection Committee. (14) As per the findings of Justice Dhabe, favouritism has occurred in the process of selection to the posts of SRA and JRA. (15) The qualification of Bachelor's degree in Agriculture Engineering was introduced as an additional qualification for the post of JRA as per the addendum dated 6.9.2004 to the advertisement dated 14.8.2004 in which the posts of JRA were advertised with the qualification of Bachelor's degree in Agriculture. (16) Preparation of the minutes of various meetings of the Selection Committee were not recorded faithfully and confirmed by its other members. The proceedings/minutes of the meetings of the Selection Committee were probably prepared after the appointment orders were issued on 16.9.2005 and 17.92005. (17) There were more than 2 months delay in handing over the Selection lists to the then Vice-Chancellor. The reasons given by the then Vice-Chancellor for the delay in not receiving the selection lists towards the end of June or July, 2005 are not convincing. (18) The Reservation policy of the Government was not followed by the University. Reservations of the posts for backward classes (social/vertical reservation) were not made according to their prescribed percentage as per the relevant GRs. of the State Government (19) The graduates of the Yashwantrao Chavan Maharashtra Open University were not considered in the University for appointment and promotion in the post of JRA. Reservations of the posts for backward classes (social/vertical reservation) were not made according to their prescribed percentage as per the relevant GRs. of the State Government (19) The graduates of the Yashwantrao Chavan Maharashtra Open University were not considered in the University for appointment and promotion in the post of JRA. (20) There were illegalities, flaws and consequential reshuffling of the Selection Lists and other infirmities in preparation of the existing selection lists of these posts of SRA and JRA. Thus, the appointments made in the posts of SRA and JRA are, highly irregular. (21) The routine procedures for making appointment in the University was not followed in the appointments made to the posts of SRA and JRA. In the report it is concluded that the entire selection process and selection of the candidates to the posts of SRA and JRA is vitiated by the illegalities, irregularities and improprieties and therefore the appointments made pursuant thereto, need to be set aside. (23) The Chancellor declined to show any leniency to the petitioners no matter they had served the University for over six years primarily because the entire selection process was in his opinion vitiated by widespread irregularities in the selection process. The findings recorded by Justice Dhabe Committee upon a detailed and thorough examination of the matter fully supported that view of the Chancellor. The reasons that prevailed with the Chancellor cannot be said to be illusory or irrelevant so as to call for interference from a writ Court. The Chancellor was dealing with a case where the Selection Committee had called a large number of candidates for interview without following the proper procedure as prescribed by the State Government leading to the appointment of underserving candidates by manipulation and favouritism. It was a case where the posts of SRAs/JRAs although carrying different pay scales were clubbed for holding a common interview. Even the criterion of assessment of the merit of the candidates was found to be faulty. Marks were awarded for qualifications although the thesis for such qualifications was submitted after the date prescribed for such advertisement. Marking system itself was found to be erroneous. Higher weightage was given to the performance in the interview as compared to academic merit. There was tinkering in the mark sheets of the candidates in certain cases and mark sheets were not made available in the meetings of the Selection Committee. Marking system itself was found to be erroneous. Higher weightage was given to the performance in the interview as compared to academic merit. There was tinkering in the mark sheets of the candidates in certain cases and mark sheets were not made available in the meetings of the Selection Committee. The Chairman and the Member Secretary of the Selection Committee had on their own increased the number of posts of SRAs and JRAs to be filled upon. All these among other aspects were considered by Justice Dhabe Committee in its report which concluded that the entire selection process was vitiated. That beneficiaries of such faulty selection process should hold on to the benefit only because of lapse of time would be travesty of justice especially when deserving candidates were left out with a brooding sense of injustice and cynicism against the efficacy of the system that was meant to act fairly and objectively. Continuance in office of those selected by means that are not fair, transparent and reasonable will amount to perpetuating the wrong. The length of service put in by the candidates who were selected on the basis of such a faulty selection process may be one of the considerations that enters the mind of the Court but there are other weighty considerations that cannot be given a go bye or conveniently forgotten lest those who do not adopt such malpractices or those who expect the system to protect their interest and their rights are eternally disappointed and left to believe that a wrong once done will never be corrected just because the legal process by which it is to be corrected is a long and winding process that often takes years to reach fruition. (24) Having said that we must say that the main contention which the petitioners have urged in support of their continuance in service is that they have become overage for any Government employment at this stage. If ousted from service the petitioners will have no place to go nor even an opportunity to compete for the vacancies against which they were appointed. That is an aspect which can be and ought to be considered especially when there is no allegation leave alone evidence about any bribery having taken place in the issue of appointment orders by the officials concerned. That is an aspect which can be and ought to be considered especially when there is no allegation leave alone evidence about any bribery having taken place in the issue of appointment orders by the officials concerned. Even so, continuance of the petitioners in service would not, in our opinion, be justified having regard to the background in which the selection and appointments were made and eventually set aside by the University. All that the long years of service rendered with the University may secure for the petitioners a direction to the effect that in any future selection against the vacancies caused by their ouster and other vacancies that may be available for the next selection the petitioners shall also be considered in relaxation of the upper age limit prescribed for them. Such of the petitioners who could try their luck in the next selection and who succeed in the same will also have the benefit of continuity of service. (25) That brings us to the method of selection that may be followed falling up the vacancies that will be caused by the ouster of the petitioners. An affidavit has in that regard been filed by the Shri Dnyaneshwar Ashru Bharati, Registrar of the respondent-University stating that in terms of Maharashtra Act No. XXXII of 2013 the Maharashtra State Legislature has amended Maharashtra Agricultural Universities (Krishi Vidyapeeths) Act, 1983. Section 58 of the principal Act as substituted by Act XXXII aforementioned provides that no person shall be appointed by the University as a member of the academic staff, except on the recommendation of a Selection Board constituted for the purpose in accordance with the provisions of the Statutes made in that behalf. The posts of SRAs and JRAs are classified as academic as per Statute 71 of the MAU statutes 1990. The process of amendment to the statutes 75 and 76 is now underway. The affidavit further states that the University will not be in a position to undertake the selection process of posts advertised on 23rd March, 2012 and that selection will be done by Recruitment Board as per the new selection procedure. The affidavit is, however, silent as to the procedure that shall be followed by the Selection Board constituted for the purpose. The affidavit is, however, silent as to the procedure that shall be followed by the Selection Board constituted for the purpose. Be that as it may the establishment of a Selection Board and formulation of proper procedure to be followed by the Board will go a long way in making the process of selection and recruitment objective, fair and reasonable apart from bringing transparency to the norms and the process by which such recruitments were made. We only hope that the process of amendment of relevant statute is expedited by the University and concluded as far as possible within six months from today and process of filling up of posts of SRAs and JRAs currently held by the petitioners and those that were advertised in terms of advertisement dated 23rd March, 2012 undertaken in accordance with such procedure. (26) In the result, the appeals fail and are hereby dismissed but in the circumstances without any order as to costs. We however direct that the University-respondent shall take necessary steps for constituting the Selection Board in terms of Section 58 of the Act as amended by Maharashtra Act No. XXXII of 2013 and advertise the vacancies currently available, together with the posts that are presently held by the appellants for recruitment in accordance with the procedure that may be prescribed in accordance with law. The entire process shall be completed by the University within six months. The appellants shall also be allowed to apply and participate in the selection process against the vacancies so advertised in relaxation of the upper age limit prescribed for such recruitment. For a period of six months or till the process of selection and appointment based on the selection process is completed by the respondent, whichever is earlier, the appellants shall be allowed to continue in service on the same terms as are currently applicable to them. In case any one of the appellants is selected by the new selection process, he shall be granted benefit of continuity of service. But such of the appellants who do not compete for the selection or are not selected for the posts that may be advertised shall stand ousted from service on completion of the period of six months hereby granted." 10. But such of the appellants who do not compete for the selection or are not selected for the posts that may be advertised shall stand ousted from service on completion of the period of six months hereby granted." 10. Coming to judgments cited by the learned Counsel for respondents 1 to 3/applicants: (a) In Vikas Pratap Singh and others case (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held thus: (Paras 22 to 26 and 28). "The pristine maxim of fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant (fraud and justice never dwell together) has never lost its temper over the centuries and it continues to dwell in spirit and body of service law jurisprudence. It is settled law that no legal right in respect of appointment to a said post vests in a candidate who has obtained the employment by fraud, mischief, misrepresentation or mala fide. (See: District Collector & Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society, Vizianagaram and another v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi, (1990) 3 SCC 655 ; P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath and others, (1994) 1 SCC 1 and Union of India and others v. M. Bhaskaran, 1995 Suppl. (4) SCC 100). It is also settled law that a person appointed erroneously on a post must not reap the benefits of wrongful appointment jeopardizing the interests of the meritorious and worthy candidates. However, in cases where a wrongful or irregular appointment is made without any mistake on the part of the appointee and upon discovery of such error or irregularity the appointee is terminated, this Court has taken a sympathetic view in the light of various factors including bona fide of the candidate in such appointment and length of service of the candidate after such appointment (See: Vinodan T. and others v. University of Calicut and others, (2002) 4 SCC 726 ; State of U.P. v. Neeraj Awasthi and others, (2006) 1 SCC 667 . In Girjesh Shrivastava and others v. State of MP. and others, (2010) 10 SCC 707 , the High Court had invalidated the rule prescribing selection procedure which awarded grace marks of 25 per cent and age relaxation to the candidates with three years' long non-formal teaching experiences as a consequence of which several candidates appointed as teachers at the formal education institutions under the said rule stood ousted. and others, (2010) 10 SCC 707 , the High Court had invalidated the rule prescribing selection procedure which awarded grace marks of 25 per cent and age relaxation to the candidates with three years' long non-formal teaching experiences as a consequence of which several candidates appointed as teachers at the formal education institutions under the said rule stood ousted. This Court while concurring with the observations made by the High Court kept in view that upon rectification of irregularities in appointment after a considerable length of time an order for cancellation of appointment would severely affect economic security of a number of candidates and observed as follows: "28. ...Most of them were earlier teaching in Non-formal education centers, from where they had resigned to apply in response to the advertisement. They had left their previous employment in view of the fact that for their three years long teaching experiences, the interview process in the present selection was awarding them grace marks of 25 per cent. It had also given them a relaxation of 8 years with respect to their age. Now, if they lose their jobs as a result of High Court's order, they would be effectively unemployed as they cannot even revert to their earlier jobs in the Non-formal education centers, which have been abolished since then. This would severely affect the economic security of many families. Most of them are between the age group of 35-45 years, and the prospects for them of finding another job are rather dim. Some of them were in fact awaiting their salary rise at the time of quashing of their appointment by the High Court." Therefore, mindful of the aforesaid circumstances this Court directed non-ouster of the candidates appointed under the invalidated rule. In Union of India (UOI) and another v. Narendra Singh, (2008) 2 SCC 750 , this Court considered the age of the employee who was erroneously promoted and the duration of his service on the promoted post and the factor of retiring from service on attaining the age of superannuation and observed as follows: "31. The last prayer on behalf of respondent, however, needs to be sympathetically considered. The respondent is holding the post of Senior Accountant (Functional) since last seventeen years. He is on the verge of retirement, so much so, that only few days have remained. The last prayer on behalf of respondent, however, needs to be sympathetically considered. The respondent is holding the post of Senior Accountant (Functional) since last seventeen years. He is on the verge of retirement, so much so, that only few days have remained. He will be reaching at the age of superannuation by the end of this month i.e., December 31, 2007. In our view, therefore, it would not be appropriate now to revert the respondent to the post of Accountant for very short period. We, therefore, direct the appellants to continue the respondent as Senior Accountant (Functional) till he reaches the age of superannuation i.e., upto December 31, 2007. At the same time, we hold that since the action of the Authorities was in accordance with Statutory Rules, an order passed by the Deputy Accountant-General cancelling promotion of the respondent and reverting him to his substantive post of Accountant was legal and valid and the respondent could not have been promoted as Senior Accountant, he would be deemed to have retired as Accountant and not as Senior Accountant (Functional) and his pensionary and retiral benefits would be fixed accordingly by treating him as Accountant all throughout. 32. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is partly allowed. Though the respondent is allowed to continue on the post of Senior Accountant (Functional) till he reaches the age of retirement i.e., December 31, 2007 and salary paid to him in that capacity will not be recovered, his retiral benefits will be fixed not as Senior Accountant (Functional) but as Accountant. In the facts and circumstances of case, there shall be no order as to costs." This Court in Gujarat State Deputy Executive Engineers' Association v. State of Gujarat and others, 1994 Supp. (2) SCC 591, although recorded a finding that appointments given under the 'wait list' were not in accordance with law but refused to set aside such appointments in view of length of service (five years and more). (2) SCC 591, although recorded a finding that appointments given under the 'wait list' were not in accordance with law but refused to set aside such appointments in view of length of service (five years and more). In Buddhi Nath Chaudhary and others v. Akhil Kumar and others, (2001) 2 SCR 18 , even though the appointments were held to be improper, this Court did not disturb the appointments on the ground that the incumbents had worked for several years and had gained experience and observed: "We have extended equitable considerations to such selected candidates who have worked on the posts for a long period." (See: M.S. Mudhol (Dr.) and another v. S.D. Halegkar and others, (1993) II LLJ 1159 SC and Tridip Kumar Dingal and others v. State of West Bengal and others, (2009) 1 SCC 768 . xxx In our considered view, the appellants have successfully undergone training and are efficiently serving the respondent-State for more than three years and undoubtedly their termination would not only impinge upon the economic security of the appellants and their dependents but also adversely affect their careers. This would be highly unjust and grossly unfair to the appellants who are innocent appointees of an erroneous evaluation of the answer scripts. However, their continuation in service should neither give any unfair advantage to the appellants nor cause undue prejudice to the candidates selected qua the revised merit list." (b) In Rajesh Kumar and others's case (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held thus: (Paras 19, 20, 21 and 22.4) 19. The submissions made by Mr. Rao are not without merit. Given the nature of the defect in the answer key the most natural and logical way of correcting the evaluation of the scripts was to correct the key and get the answer scripts re-evaluated on the basis thereof. There was, in the circumstances, no compelling reason for directing a fresh examination to be held by the Commission especially when there was no allegation about any malpractice, fraud or corrupt motives that could possibly vitiate the earlier examination to call for a fresh attempt by all concerned. The process of re-evaluation of the answer scripts with reference to the correct key will in addition be less expensive apart from being quicker. The process of re-evaluation of the answer scripts with reference to the correct key will in addition be less expensive apart from being quicker. The process would also not give any unfair advantage to anyone of the candidates on account of the time lag between the examination earlier held and the one that may have been held pursuant to the direction of the High Court. Suffice it to say that the re-evaluation was and is a better option, in the facts and circumstances of the case. 20. That brings us to the submission by Mr. Rao that while re-evaluation is a good option not only to do justice to those who may have suffered on account of an erroneous key being applied to the process but also to writ petitioners-respondents 6 to 18 in the matter of allocating to them their rightful place in the merit list. Such evaluation need not necessarily result in the ouster of the appellants should they be found to fall below the 'cut off mark in the merit list. Mr. Rao gave two reasons in support of that submission. Firstly, he contended that the appellants are not responsible for the error committed by the parties in the matter of evaluation of the answer scripts. The position may have been different if the appellants were guilty of any fraud, misrepresentation or malpractice that would have deprived them of any sympathy from the Court or justified their ouster. Secondly, he contended that the appellants have served the State efficiently and without any complaint for nearly seven years now and most of them, if not all, may have become overage for fresh recruitment within the State or outside the State. They have also lost the opportunity to appear in the subsequent examination held in the year 2007. Their ouster from service after their employment on the basis of a properly conducted competitive examination not itself affected by any malpractice or other extraneous consideration or misrepresentation will cause hardship to them and ruin their careers and lives. The experience gained by these appellants over the years would also, according to Mr. Rao, go waste as the State will not have the advantage of using valuable human resource which was found useful in the service to the people of the State of Bihar for a long time. Mr. The experience gained by these appellants over the years would also, according to Mr. Rao, go waste as the State will not have the advantage of using valuable human resource which was found useful in the service to the people of the State of Bihar for a long time. Mr. Rao, therefore, prayed for a suitable direction that while re-evaluation can determine the inter se position of the writ petitioners and the appellants in these appeals, the result of such re-evaluation may not lead to their ouster from service, if they fell below the cut off line. 21. There is considerable merit in the submission of Mr. Rao. It goes without saying that the appellants were innocent parties who have not, in any manner, contributed to the preparation of the erroneous key or the distorted result. There is no mention of any fraud or malpractice against the appellants who have served the State for nearly seven years now. In the circumstances, while inter se merit position may be relevant for the appellants, the ouster of the latter need not be an inevitable and inexorable consequence of such a re-evaluation. The re-evaluation process may additionally benefit those who have lost the hope of an appointment on the basis of a wrong key applied for evaluating the answer scripts. Such of those candidates as may be ultimately found to be entitled to issue of appointment letters on the basis of their merit shall benefit by such re-evaluation and shall pick up their appointments on that basis according to their inter se position on the merit list. 22. In the result, we allow these appeals, set aside the order passed by the High Court and direct that- xxx (4) Such of the appellants as do not make the grade after re-evaluation shall not be ousted from service, but shall figure at the bottom of the list of selected candidates based on the first selection in terms of Advertisement No. 1406 of 2006 and the second selection held pursuant to Advertisement No. 1906 of 2006." (c) In Tejinder Kaur and others's case (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held thus: (Paras 12 & 13). "We find that the guidelines really provide for request by the candidate for re-assessing of his/her marks and there is no scope for asking for re-assessment in the case of other candidates. "We find that the guidelines really provide for request by the candidate for re-assessing of his/her marks and there is no scope for asking for re-assessment in the case of other candidates. But in view of the earlier order of the High Court that question has become academic. It is to be noted that the respondent Nos. 6 to 10 in the writ petition had completed 21/2 years of training. In the meantime they had appeared in List B, C and list D. In view of the aforesaid peculiar situation we set aside that part of the order of the High Court by which their selection was set aside. It would be inequitable to deprive them the benefits of what had been extended to them. Deficiency, if any, in not allotting proper marks as done by the authorities cannot deprive them of the benefit which they have obtained. It is not shown that they were a party to the wrong allotment of marks at the original stage. The position may have been different if that was so. That being so, this appeal is allowed. But the appellant Raj Kumari has not made the grade. Therefore, her appeal deserves to be dismissed, which we direct. There is no substance in the plea that some of the appellants in the other appeal had secured lesser marks than her. But because of the circumstances highlighted above, we feel that the analogy cannot be extended to her. The appeals are accordingly disposed of." (d) In Sanjay Singh's case (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held thus: (Para 52). "The petitioners have requested that their petitions should be treated as being in public interest and the entire selection process in regard to Civil Judge (Junior Division) Examination, 2003 should be set aside. We are unable to accept the said contention. What has been made out is certain inherent defects of a particular scaling system when applied to the selection process of the Civil Judges (Junior Division) where the problem is one of examiner variability (strict/liberal examiners). Neither mala fides nor any other irregularities in the process of selection is made out. The Commission has acted bona fide in proceeding with the selection and neither the High Court nor the State Government had any grievance in regard to selections. Neither mala fides nor any other irregularities in the process of selection is made out. The Commission has acted bona fide in proceeding with the selection and neither the High Court nor the State Government had any grievance in regard to selections. In fact, the scaling system applied had the seal of approval of this Court in regard to the previous selection in S.C. Dixit (supra). The selected candidates have also been appointed and functioning as Judicial Officers. Further as noticed above, the scaling system adopted by the Commission has led to irrational and arbitrary results only in cases falling at the ends of the spectrum, and by and large did not affect the major portion of the selection. We, therefore, direct that our decision holding that the scaling system adopted by the Commission is unsuited in regard to Civil Judge (Junior Division) Examination and directing moderation, will be prospective in its application and will not affect the selections and appointments already made in pursuance of the 2003 Examination." (e) In Satish Rawat's case (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court thus: (Paras 3 to 5). "3. In the review application filed by the Department it was specifically averred that records of the selection of the appellant and other candidates who were selected against sports quota in 1992-93 were now traceable. Pursuant to the selection made by the Department the appellant had worked from 1.9.1992 to 7.6.2001 for nearly 8 years and 7 months except for a break from 1.12.2000 to 12.1.2001. Now he is over-aged for any selection for any post under sports quota. On the basis of the records that were made available at the time when the Tribunal passed the order, the appellant was excluded from consideration and on their own showing the difference between the appellant and respondent No. 3 in securing marks is not much inasmuch as both had secured almost identical marks in the written examination with a difference of one mark and in the interview there was a big margin. So far as the field test is concerned, the results thereof were not very categorical as to the competence of the candidates because the appellant and respondent No. 3 fell in two different categories, one as a Goal Keeper and the other as a Deep Defender. On this basis, the appellant's appointment is justifiable. 4. So far as the field test is concerned, the results thereof were not very categorical as to the competence of the candidates because the appellant and respondent No. 3 fell in two different categories, one as a Goal Keeper and the other as a Deep Defender. On this basis, the appellant's appointment is justifiable. 4. Respondent No. 3 could not have displaced the appellant but for the order made by the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that on the basis of the records before it, he was entitled to be considered to the exclusion of the appellant. Had complete records been placed before the Tribunal appropriate conclusion could have been drawn. For the mess that arose on appointment of the appellant and not supporting it properly and for appointment of respondent No. 3, the Department is entirely blameworthy. If now respondent No. 3 is displaced by the appellant, he will be uprooted. 5. In the circumstances of the case we think that the appointment of respondent No. 3 as directed by the Tribunal should not be disturbed. However, in the peculiar facts of the case as arise now, it would be proper for the Department to provide a post to the appellant and such post if not available shall be created on supernumerary basis to be absorbed when a regular vacancy arises. However, the appellant shall not be entitled to any monetary benefits for the period he had not worked. He be appointed in the post on the basis he had been originally appointed in 1992 and due benefits of increments be given to him and his pay-scale should be appropriately fixed on the basis of last pay drawn at the time of his discharge from service." 11. In the considered opinion of this Court, the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Hitendra Singh Bhupendrasingh's case (supra), would not render any assistance to the writ petitioners herein, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand and in the absence of any manipulation or favoritism or other mal-practices, or contingency, as observed in the above judgment. It is also to be noted that the judgments relied on, by the learned Counsel for respondents 1 to 3/applicants are squarely applicable to the instant case. 12. It is also to be noted that the judgments relied on, by the learned Counsel for respondents 1 to 3/applicants are squarely applicable to the instant case. 12. It is also significant to note that this Court finds sufficient force in the submission of the learned Counsel for respondents 1 to 3/applicants that second petitioner herein was swayed away by the report of petitioner No. 1 herein, and passed order Ref. No. 27817/2010-T2, dated 20.7.2010, wherein the petitioner No. 1 observed that selections done have to be set aside. 13. A perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal clearly shows that the Tribunal took note of the conduct of the writ petitioners-authorities in justifying the selection process, in the Original Application No. 3483 of 2008 filed by one A.P. Murutuja Valli, an unsuccessful candidate in the subject selection. The Tribunal also recorded a finding that innocent candidates, who got selection and the appointments 7 years ago, cannot be penalized. The said finding, in the considered opinion of this Court, is in accordance with the law laid down in the decisions relied on by the learned Counsel for respondents 1 to 3/applicants. The Tribunal also observed that though the respondents 1 to 3/applicants submitted their explanations to the show-cause notices, both the authorities did not take the same into consideration and the impugned order was passed as per the decision taken by the Chief Conservator of Forests that the selection process was wrong. The Tribunal also recorded a finding that petitioner No. 2 did not act on his own and did not take the decision independently in accordance with Rules. The Tribunal eventually did set aside the order of termination dated 28.9.2014 by assigning cogent, valid and convincing reasons. It is a settled and well established principle of law that a writ in the nature of writ of certiorari can be issued only when there is patent perversity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order. The Tribunal eventually did set aside the order of termination dated 28.9.2014 by assigning cogent, valid and convincing reasons. It is a settled and well established principle of law that a writ in the nature of writ of certiorari can be issued only when there is patent perversity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order. In this context, it may be appropriate to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan and others, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court, in Paragraph No. 7, held as follows: "The question about the limits of the jurisdiction of High Courts in issuing a writ of certiorari under Article 226 has been frequently considered by this Court and the true legal position in that behalf is no longer in doubt. A writ of certiorari can be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction committed by inferior Courts or Tribunals; these are cases where orders are passed by inferior Courts or Tribunals without jurisdiction, or in excess of it, or as a result of failure to exercise jurisdictions. A writ can similarly be issued where in exercise of jurisdiction conferred on it, the Court or Tribunal acts illegally or improperly, as for instance, it decides a question without giving an opportunity to be heard to the party affected by the order, or where the procedure adopted in dealing with the dispute is opposed to principles of natural justice. There is, however, no doubt that the jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari is a supervisory jurisdiction and the Court exercising it is not entitled to act as an Appellate Court. This limitation necessarily means that findings of fact reached by the inferior Court or Tribunal as a result of the appreciation of evidence cannot be reopened or questioned in writ proceedings. An error of law which is apparent on the face of the record can be corrected by a writ, but not an error of tact, however grave it may appear to be. In regard to a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal, a writ of certiorari can be issued if it is shown that in recording the said finding, the Tribunal had, erroneously refused to admit admissible and material evidence, or had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which has influenced the impugned finding. In regard to a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal, a writ of certiorari can be issued if it is shown that in recording the said finding, the Tribunal had, erroneously refused to admit admissible and material evidence, or had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which has influenced the impugned finding. Similarly, if a finding of fact is based on no evidence, that would be regarded as an error of law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. In dealing with this category of cases, however, we must always bear in mind that a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal cannot be challenged in proceedings for a writ of certiorari on the ground that the relevant and material evidence adduced before the Tribunal was' insufficient or inadequate to sustain the impugned finding. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on a point and the inference of fact to be drawn from the said finding are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal, and the said points cannot be agitated before a writ Court. It is within these limits that the jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 226 to issue a writ of certiorari can be legitimately exercised (vide Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmed Ishaque; Nagendra Nath Bora v. The Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals, Assam and Kaushalya Devi v. Bachittar Singh)." 14. In the instant case, in the considered opinion of this Court, there is no jurisdictional error or patent irregularity and the same are conspicuously absent. Having regard to the above reasons, the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and the reasons assigned by the Tribunal in the impugned order, this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 15. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in the appeal shall stand closed.