JUDGMENT : The matter has been heard with the consent of learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing. There is no complaint about any audio and visual quality. The instant intra-court appeal has been listed under the heading ‘For Orders’ with defects. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted that defect as has been pointed out by the office being minor in nature, therefore, the same may be ignored and the matter may be heard finally on merit. This Court after perusing the office note as also the report of the Stamp Reporter and taking into consideration the nature of defect, deem it fit and proper to ignore the same, accordingly, the defect as has been pointed out by the office, is ignored. The instant appeal is barred by limitation and as such, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants has pressed the delay condonation application being I.A.No.3862 of 2019. I.A.No.3862 of 2019 This interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 102 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal. Heard. In view of the submissions made on behalf of the parties and the averments made in the interlocutory application, we are of the view that the appellants were prevented by sufficient cause in preferring the appeal within the period of limitation. Accordingly, I.A.No.3862 of 2019 is allowed and delay of 102 days in preferring the appeal is condoned. L.P.A. No.315 of 2019 This appeal has been heard for its final disposal at this stage on the consent of the parties. 2. The instant intra-court appeal is directed against the order/judgment dated 27.11.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.1527 of 2009, whereby and whereunder, the Writ Court has declined to pass a positive direction upon the respondents pertaining to appointment of the writ petitioners on the post of Constable in pursuant to Advertisement No.01 of 2004. 3. The brief facts of the case are required to be referred herein which reads as hereunder:- The respondents-authorities have come out with an Advertisement No.01 of 2004 inviting application for filling up the post of Constable. 3. The brief facts of the case are required to be referred herein which reads as hereunder:- The respondents-authorities have come out with an Advertisement No.01 of 2004 inviting application for filling up the post of Constable. The writ petitioners had participated in the process of selection and had appeared in physical as also the written test and after proper verification, they were recommended for selection for appointment on the post of Constable as per the select list published in the daily newspaper dated 09.12.2004 vide Annexure-1 annexed to the writ petition. The aforesaid select list was the subject matter of question before this Court in a writ petition being W.P.(S) No.1458 of 2004, which was disposed of on 13.03.2005 with a direction to the Superintendent of Police of the district to fill up the available post of Constable. In the meantime, the respondent-authority passed an order dated 10.12.2005 cancelling the selection of Police Constable which was challenged in W.P.(S) No.1242 of 2006 and vide order dated 07.11.2005, the cancellation of selection has been quashed. It is the claim of the writ petitioners that since they were working as Home Guard and their case is fully covered by the judgment rendered in W.P.(S) No.1242 of 2006, the action of the respondents is in breach of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Being aggrieved by non-appointment on the aforesaid post, the present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking therein the direction for issuance of appointment letter in their favour. The writ petitioners have agitated the ground that in spite of selection, the respondents in an illegal and arbitrary manner have deprived the writ petitioners for appointment to the post in question. It is the further case of the writ petitioners that their non-selection is based upon the findings of an enquiry, wherein the conclusion has been arrived against the writ petitioners but without giving opportunity to them. It is the further case of the writ petitioners that their non-selection is based upon the findings of an enquiry, wherein the conclusion has been arrived against the writ petitioners but without giving opportunity to them. It is the further grievance of the writ petitioners that the names of 932 candidates as has been appended as Annexure-A to the counter affidavit, it would be evident that the roll numbers of writ petitioners are mentioned in column “Anya Truti”, which is manifestly vague and does not disclose the basis of the preparation of the said entry for these writ petitioners and the allegations made in the counter affidavit has not been supported by any materials and therefore, the writ petitioners are entitled to the reliefs as prayed for. Controverting the averments made in the writ application, a counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent no.3, wherein inter-alia stand was taken that all the writ petitioners participated in the selection process and had been declared successful in their categories but during the enquiry, it was found that the roll numbers of all the writ petitioners mentioned in the list of 932 candidates identified by the then Inspector General of Police, North Chhotanagpur Zone, Bokaro. The aforesaid list was prepared on the basis of irregularities of various natures like amendment in height, overwriting in height, amendment in date of birth and interpolation of Home Guard/Sports certificates etc. were found in respect of 932 candidates and accordingly, they were declared to be beneficiaries of malpractice during the selection process as per AnnexureA to the counter affidavit. It has further been submitted that while disposing the writ application being W.P.(S) No.1242 of 2006 along with other writ petitions, the Division Bench of this Court has directed the concerned department to make appointment according to select/merit list of successful candidates against the advertised vacancies excluding 932 candidates identified by the Enquiry Officer and found to be beneficiaries of malpractice during the selection process. The Writ Court after taking into consideration the rival submissions of the parties and relying upon the well settled principle that merely the inclusion of name in select/merit list does not give any indefeasible right for appointment, has declined to pass any positive direction in favour of the writ petitioners by holding the writ petition devoid of merit, which is the subject matter of the present intra-court appeal. 4. Mr. 4. Mr. Pratyush Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants/writ petitioners has submitted that on the vague allegation of commission of irregularities, the appellants have been deprived from appointment as Constable while nothing substantial has come against these writ petitioners showing them to be involved for any means of malpractices having been committed in course of process of selection. He further submits that even from the enquiry report merely on the ground of some ‘Truti’, the writ petitioners have been deprived from appointment as Constable in terms of the advertisement in question but these facts since have not been considered by the learned Single Judge, therefore, the present intra-court appeal. 5. Per contra, Mr. Shadab Iqbal, learned A.C to S.C.(Mines)-III appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has submitted with vehemence by defending the order passed by the learned Single Judge by making a submission that the learned Single Judge after taking into consideration the fact that 932 candidates were participated in the process of selection in terms of the advertisement in question have been found to be beneficiaries of malpractice and further as would be evident from the enquiry report, all the 932 candidates have been given benefit of malpractices which is evident from the face of the report, wherein, there is overwriting in front of the name of 932 candidates and the writ petitioners are under the list of 932 candidates and therefore, they have rightly not been considered fit to be appointed. Further, even the Division Bench of this Court in an order passed in W.P.(S) No.1242 of 2006 has directed not to fill up the vacancies from amongst the list of 932 candidates identified by the Enquiry Officer. The learned Single Judge, after taking into consideration these aspects of the matter, has rightly not passed any positive direction in favour of the writ petitioners and therefore, the said order suffers from no infirmity. 6. This Court after having heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and taking into consideration the documents available on record as also the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge has found therefrom certain admitted facts which required to be referred herein as:- The respondent-State of Jharkhand has come out with an advertisement being Advertisement No.01 of 2004 inviting application for filling up the post of Constable. The writ petitioners had participated and their names find mentioned in the select list under the recommended candidates for appointment as Constable. Subsequently, when the delay has been caused in issuance of appointment letter, a writ petition has been filed before this Court being W.P.(S) No.1458 of 2004, wherein, a direction upon the Superintendent of Police has been passed to fill up the available post of Constable. The respondents-authorities have come out with a decision vide order dated 10.12.2005 cancelling the selection of Police Constable, in terms of the said advertisement which was challenged before this Court in W.P.(S) No.1242 of 2006 and vide order dated 07.11.2005, the cancellation of selection has been quashed by this Court with a direction to make appointment according to select/merit list of successful candidates against the advertised vacancies excluding 932 candidates identified by the Enquiry Officer. The Division Bench of this Court, while adjudicating the issue in W.P.(S) No.1242 of 2006, has considered the enquiry report containing therein the finding about the commission of malpractices and holding the beneficiaries including the writ petitioners as a part of beneficiaries of the malpractices. The writ petitioners, in that factual backdrop, has approached to this Court by filing the writ petition being W.P.(S) No.1527 of 2009 for a direction upon the respondents to issue appointment letter in their favour. The aforesaid writ petition has been dismissed which is questioned in this appeal. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted that the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer is being acted upon against the writ petitioners, therefore, an opportunity of hearing was required to be provided, having not done so, the said enquiry report ought not to have made applicable against the writ petitioners. The admitted fact herein is that the selection process has been cancelled by the respondent authority after coming this fact into surface about the commission of irregularities in making recommendation of the list of successful candidates which includes the names of the writ petitioners containing therein 932 candidates. The aforesaid order of the authorities have been challenged before this Court in W.P.(S) No.1242 of 2006, however, the cancellation of entire selection process has been quashed and set aside with a direction upon the respondents to fill up the vacancies excluding 932 candidates, therefore, there is a conclusive finding against the 932 candidates which includes the name of the writ petitioners. The question is that when 932 candidates have been excluded from consideration of their candidature for appointment as Constable in terms of Advertisement No.01 of 2004, can a Writ Court pass a positive direction in favour of the writ petitioners? The answer would be certainly in negative as the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court would be binding upon the learned Single Judge. When the Division Bench of this Court, in W.P.(S) No.1242 of 2006, has passed an order for appointment of successful candidates excluding 932 candidates identified by the Enquiry Officer which includes the name of the writ petitioners, therefore, the writ petitioners cannot come forward and seek a direction for their appointment. The learned Single Judge has taken note of that order. The learned Single Judge has also considered the fact that even accepting that the name of the writ petitioners, have been included in the same select list and if the candidate name is being recommended, the same does not give any indefeasible righty for appointment, rather the right only accrue the date when the appointment letter would be issued to one or the other candidates. The learned Single Judge has taken into consideration in this context the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Shankarsan Dash Vs. Union of India, reported in (1991) 3 SCC 47 and Devendra Kumar Vs. State of Uttaranchal & Ors., reported in (2013) 9 SCC 363 . The learned Single Judge has also dealt with the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mahipal Singh Tomar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., reported in (2013) 16 SCC 771 , wherein, the fact of the aforesaid case is quite different to that of present one. The fact remains is that when the Division Bench of this Court in an order passed in W.P.(S) No.1242 of 2006 has excluded the 932 candidates from issuance of appointment letter in their favour, the Writ Court is right in dismissing the writ petition. 8. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that opportunity of hearing ought to have been provided before holding the writ petitioner’s involvement in the malpractices as per the enquiry report is concerned, it is the established principle that the question of providing opportunity of hearing will only come if there is any dispute of facts. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that opportunity of hearing ought to have been provided before holding the writ petitioner’s involvement in the malpractices as per the enquiry report is concerned, it is the established principle that the question of providing opportunity of hearing will only come if there is any dispute of facts. Here, according to us, there is no dispute of the facts about the commission of irregularities since the finding contained in the enquiry report includes the names of 932 candidates inclusive of writ petitioner. The Co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court, in W.P.(S) No.1242 of 2006, has accepted the aforesaid enquiry report and has directed to fill up the vacancies excluding the candidates who are under said 932 candidates. The aforesaid order has not been questioned by the writ petitioner before the appropriate Forum and as such, the said order has attained finality. Since the aforesaid fact is not in dispute and in that circumstances there is no question of providing an opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner as because even if the said opportunity would be granted then, there is no chance of change in the admitted facts. It is settled that there is no straight-jacket formula to provide opportunity of hearing rather it depends upon the facts of the case. The principle of natural justice is only to be provided if the facts are in dispute but if there is no chance of change in the result there cannot be any direction to follow the principle of natural justice otherwise it will lead to empty formality and futile exercise. Reference in this case may be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Escorts Farms Ltd. Vrs. Commissioner, Kumaon Division, Nainital, U.P. and Ors., reported in (2004) 4 SCC 281 has held at paragraph-64 which is being quoted herein below:- “64. Right of hearing to a necessary party is a valuable right. Denial of such right is serious breach of statutory procedure prescribed and violation of rules of natural justice. In these appeals preferred by the holder of land and some other transferees, we have found that the terms of government grant did not permit transfers of land without permission of the State as grantor. Denial of such right is serious breach of statutory procedure prescribed and violation of rules of natural justice. In these appeals preferred by the holder of land and some other transferees, we have found that the terms of government grant did not permit transfers of land without permission of the State as grantor. Remand of cases of a group of transferees who were not heard, would, therefore, be of no legal consequence, more so, when on this legal question all affected parties have got full opportunity of hearing before the High Court and in this appeal before this Court. Rules of natural justice are to be followed for doing substantial justice and not for completing a mere ritual of hearing without possibility of any change in the decision of the case on merits. In view of the legal position explained by us above, we therefore, refrain from remanding these cases in exercise of our discretionary powers under Article 136 of the Constitution of India”. In the case of Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vrs. Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Gauhati and Ors., reported in (2015) 8 SCC 519 wherein their Lordships have held at paragraph 39 which is being quoted herein below:- “39. We are not concerned with these aspects in the present case as the issue relates to giving of notice before taking action. While emphasizing that the principles of natural justice cannot be applied in straight jacket formula, the aforesaid instances are given. We have highlighted the jurisprudential basis of adhering to the principles of natural justice which are grounded on the doctrine of procedural fairness, accuracy of outcome leading to general social goals, etc. Nevertheless, there may be situations wherein for some reason perhaps because the evidence against the individual is thought to be utterly compelling-it is felt that a fair hearing “would make no difference”-meaning that a hearing would not change the ultimate conclusion reached by the decision-maker”. 9. Nevertheless, there may be situations wherein for some reason perhaps because the evidence against the individual is thought to be utterly compelling-it is felt that a fair hearing “would make no difference”-meaning that a hearing would not change the ultimate conclusion reached by the decision-maker”. 9. This Court sitting under intra-court appeal is also of the view that when the Coordinate Bench of this Court under its writ jurisdiction in W.P.(S) No.1242 of 2006 has already passed an order to fill up the post of Constable excluding 932 candidates as has been identified by the Enquiry Officer, it would not be appropriate, just and proper to pass an order in favour of the writ petitioners otherwise it would lead to reviewing the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court. 10. This Court after taking into consideration the facts in entirety and the reasons as aforesaid is of the view that the order passed by the learned Single Judge suffers from no error. 11. In the result, the instant appeal lacks merit and hence, it is dismissed.