JUDGMENT : Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J. 1. Since the controversy raised in all the above mentioned writ petitions are identical they have been heard together and are being disposed off finally vide this judgment. Writ Appeal No. 5913 of 2021 (Vikas Tiwari and Others vs. State of U.P. and Others) is treated as the lead case. 2. Petitioners in this bunch of writ petitions are aggrieved by the decision of Examination Controller, U.P. Subordinate Services Selection Commission, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission') dated 24.3.2021, cancelling the recruitment exercise undertaken by the Commission vide advertisement No. 2 of 2018 for combined examination to the posts of Gram Panchayat Adhikari, Gram Vikas Adhikari (Samaj Kalyan) and Samaj Kalayan Supervisor, for which examination was held on 22nd and 23rd December, 2018. Prayer consequently has been made to quash the decision taken on 24.3.2021 and command the respondents to proceed with petitioners' document verification and issue orders of appointment to them, as they have already been shortlisted, for appointment to the advertised posts. 3. The Commission has published advertisement No. 2 of 2018 inviting applications for appointment to 1527 permanent posts of Gram Panchayat Adhikari, 362 temporary posts of Gram Vikas Adhikari (Samaj Kalyan) and 64 permanent posts of Samaj Kalyan Supervisor. Registration pursuant to above advertisement was to commence online on 30.6.2018 and deposit of online fee was to start on 1.6.2018. Last date for registration was 25.6.2018; whereas last date for deposit of online fee was 27.6.2018. The last date for submission of application was 29.6.2018. Provision for Vertical and Horizontal reservation; specification of age of candidate and their qualification etc. were specified in the advertisement. Clause 11 of the advertisement provided that the basis of selection in the recruitment is written examination. Clause 12 specified the scheme of examination and its syllabus. The examination itself was to be of objective type with only one paper of 300 marks. This paper was to be in three parts, namely Hindi Knowledge and Writing Ability; Mental Aptitude; and General Knowledge, consisting of 50 questions each in all three parts. Each question carried 2 marks, totalling 300 marks. All the questions had to be attempted in 2 hours. Advertisement also provided for negative marks to be awarded against a wrong answer. 4. This paper was to be in three parts, namely Hindi Knowledge and Writing Ability; Mental Aptitude; and General Knowledge, consisting of 50 questions each in all three parts. Each question carried 2 marks, totalling 300 marks. All the questions had to be attempted in 2 hours. Advertisement also provided for negative marks to be awarded against a wrong answer. 4. The Commission notified on 17.10.2018 that the examination pursuant to advertisement in question would be conducted in two shifts at 1572 centres in 16 districts of the State on 22nd and 23rd December, 2018 between 10-12 a.m. and 03-05 p.m. respectively. 5. It is admitted to the parties that the task of conducting written examination was outsourced to M/s. Tata Consultancy Services (hereinafter referred to as 'Agency') by the Commission. According to petitioners full proof measures were taken to maintain fairness, transparency and confidentiality in the conduct of examination and the candidates were allowed entry in the examination centre only after their biometric identification and the examination was also conducted under surveillance of CCTV cameras. 6. The examination was of objective type and each question contained four answers, one of which was correct. The candidates were required to darken the circle against the correct answer in the OMR Sheet. As per the examination scheme each candidate was provided with three copies of OMR sheets. The darkening of correct answer was required on the first OMR Sheet and its impressions got copied on the remaining two OMR Sheets. The first OMR Sheet was to be utilised for evaluating the score of candidate while the second copy was to be kept in a safe custody of Treasury. The candidate could retain the third copy with himself. 7. Certain allegations appear to have surfaced in several newspapers highlighting various illegalities and irregularities in the conduct of aforesaid examination. This resulted in initiation of different inquiries/investigations into the complaints at different levels. A First Information Report was also lodged against 136 candidates, who were prima facie found guilty of tampering their OMR sheets. 8. A communication was issued by the Commission on 28.10.2019, declaring a list of 1952 successful candidates in the written test to be called for document verification and examination of their eligibility. The list contained roll numbers of candidates in different categories. 8. A communication was issued by the Commission on 28.10.2019, declaring a list of 1952 successful candidates in the written test to be called for document verification and examination of their eligibility. The list contained roll numbers of candidates in different categories. By a separate order of the same date the Commission declared the cut-off marks for different categories of candidates as per their vertical and horizontal reservation category. 136 candidates against whom police report was lodged under Section 154 Cr.P.C. were excluded in the process. These 136 candidates moreover were expelled from all future recruitment conducted by the Commission for a period of three years. The respective examination centres of these 136 candidates have also been debarred from holding any other examination of Commission. 9. The apparent reason for action against 136 candidates was that the marks obtained by them, on the basis of their first OMR Sheet varied from the marks awarded to them in the second OMR sheet kept in the Treasury of concerned district. Since the first copy of OMR Sheet was scanned by the Commission and the second OMR sheet merely contained impressions of the first OMR copy, therefore, the marks could not have varied in the two OMR Sheets, as had admittedly occurred in the case of 136 candidates. This clearly established manipulation in the OMR Sheets of these candidates. 10. On 29.2.2020 the Commission issued yet another notification and called upon the candidates to appear for document verification on different dates between 12.3.2020 to 2.6.2020, in the office of Commission, as per the dates fixed. 11. Petitioners further contend that apart from various newspaper report etc. the Cabinet Minister of the Department of Village Development also sent a letter to the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh highlighting large scale manipulation in holding of examination which led to the formation of a special investigation team (SIT) to investigate the allegations made in the conduct of examination. 12. On 18.3.2020 the Commission stayed the ongoing process of document verification on account of Covid-19 pandemic and the shortlisted candidates were directed to download their entry ticket for document verification and a separate date was to be notified to them for the conduct of document verification. By a separate notice of Commission, dated 27.3.2020, the process of document verification was stayed until further orders. 13. By a separate notice of Commission, dated 27.3.2020, the process of document verification was stayed until further orders. 13. The Commission on 20.6.2020 notified that since a special investigation team was constituted by State to probe the allegations of manipulation in conduct of examination in question, therefore, the Commission in its meeting held on 29.5.2020 resolved to await the outcome of investigation by Special Investigating Team (SIT) and to proceed in the matter only thereafter. The process of recruitment therefore was kept in abeyance till conclusion of investigation by SIT. 14. The State Government received the report of SIT upon conclusion of its investigation on 31.12.2020. A meeting was held on 18.1.2021 to consider the report and a Government Order dated 24.2.2021 followed to this effect. 15. The SIT in its report, dated 31.12.2020, has opined that on the basis of oral and documentary evidence collected during investigation it has found illegality in the holding of examination as also tampering with original OMR sheets. Recommendation also came to be made to transfer case crime No. 584 of 2019, registered at Police Station Vibhuti Khand, Lucknow to the SIT. This recommendation apparently was considered by the State Government and ultimately a decision was taken to accept the recommendation made by the SIT in the matter. It is thereafter that the Commission has resolved to cancel the recruitment vide order impugned dated 24.3.2021. Aggrieved by such decision the petitioners are before this Court. 16. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of Social Welfare Department of State, which appears to be formal in nature. The Commission has filed its counter-affidavit according to which more than 14 lac applications were received against the advertisement No. 2 of 2018 and 9,53,000 candidates approximately appeared in the written examination. In Para 8 it is stated that a conscious decision was taken on 28.1.2019 that before declaring result of written examination held on 22 and 23rd December, 2018 the original OMR sheet of candidate in the ratio of 1:10 to the available posts be compared with copy of OMR sheets kept in the Treasury. As per the Commission each candidate was supplied three copies of OMR sheet in the written examination. The main copy was taken by the nominated Agency for scanning and evaluating marks while second copy was kept in the Treasury of concerned district where examination itself was conducted. As per the Commission each candidate was supplied three copies of OMR sheet in the written examination. The main copy was taken by the nominated Agency for scanning and evaluating marks while second copy was kept in the Treasury of concerned district where examination itself was conducted. The Commission accordingly compared OMR sheets of candidates in the ratio of 1:10 and found that there was discrepancy of more than 10% in the marks obtained in the two OMR Sheets of 136 candidates. The Commission accordingly lodged a First Information Report against these 136 candidates and also debarred them from participating in future examinations to be conducted by the Commission for a period of three years, apart from blacklisting the examination centres of these candidates from holding any future examination to be conducted by the Commission. In para 13 it is asserted that the evaluation of two OMR sheets was got conducted from an Agency other than the Agency which had scanned OMR sheets earlier. In para 15 it is asserted that the exercise revealed that 83 candidates from the list of successful candidates showed discrepancy of more than 5% marks between two respective OMR sheets. A decision was taken then to offer an opportunity to these 83 plus 136 candidates in the matter. The Commission thereafter came to know about State's decision to have the investigation carried out by SIT and Commission, therefore, deferred the process. An interim report is said to have been submitted by SIT doubting the role of Agency entrusted with task of holding examination. The Commission appears to have taken a further decision not to allot any further work to the Agency entrusted with the task of holding examination and other examinations assigned to such Agency were also resolved to be stayed. 17. On 19.7.2021 this Court directed the respondents to produce report of the SIT. Again on 29.7.2021 the respondents were directed to obtain instructions with respect to petitioners' contention that at best candidature of 136 candidates be cancelled but the entire recruitment ought not be cancelled in the absence of any adverse material existing against other candidates. On 7.9.2021 this Court further directed the Commission to bring on record the agreement/guidelines, if any, entered between the Commission and Agency for conduct of the examination. 18. In compliance of above orders the Commission has filed a supplementary counter-affidavit. On 7.9.2021 this Court further directed the Commission to bring on record the agreement/guidelines, if any, entered between the Commission and Agency for conduct of the examination. 18. In compliance of above orders the Commission has filed a supplementary counter-affidavit. It is disclosed therein that the Commission entered into an agreement for providing services by the Agency, effective from 14.7.2018, copy whereof is Annexure-1 to the aforesaid affidavit. The scope of work as per the agreement is contained in Schedule-II which inter-alia included ''setting and printing of question paper, OMR Answer Sheet designing, printing and supply and also processing of OMR Answer Sheets, Scanning, Evaluation and objection resolution. Apart from such duties the Agency was further conferred the responsibility of conducting the examination including selection of well equipped and reputed examination centers and also deployment of Supervisors, Managers, Invigilators and other Staff at each center''. In para 5 the Commission has stated that the OMR sheets were required to be packed and transported to Lucknow by the Agency and the opening, sorting, scanning and processing of answer sheets were required to be done exclusively at the Commission's premises. The Agency was also required to arrange manpower, equipment and hardware and other material at the Commission's office. The instruction booklet issued by the Commission is also annexed with the supplementary counter-affidavit which contains procedure for collection and transportation of OMR sheets by Agency from Treasury to centers and back to Treasury and also to the office of the Commission. The Commission apparently has taken the stand that it acted with due diligence to secure fairness in examination process and only when it got established in the SIT enquiry that large scale manipulation was caused in holding of the recruitment that it resolved to cancel the examination process. 19. A rejoinder-affidavit has been filed stating that the petitioners have qualified the test on the strength of their merit, without any manipulation or illegality attributed to them and, therefore, merely because in respect of 136 candidates discrepancy to the extent of 10% was observed between two OMR sheets it would not justify cancellation of entire recruitment process itself. 20. The report of SIT has also been produced before the Court in a sealed envelop and has been perused by the Court. 20. The report of SIT has also been produced before the Court in a sealed envelop and has been perused by the Court. Relevant passages from the SIT report have been allowed to be perused by the Senior Counsels for the petitioners, Sri Ashok Khare and Sri R.K. Ojha in the presence of Sri Ajeet Kumar Singh, learned Additional Advocate General for the State. 21. Sri Ashok Khare and Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Counsels for the petitioners alongwith other counsels appearing in the connected writ petitions have strenuously urged that decision of the Commission to cancel the entire recruitment exercise in the facts and circumstances is wholly irrational, arbitrary and unsustainable. With respect to materials placed on record it is sought to be urged that irregularities, if any, have been found only in respect of specified number of candidates and action against them have been initiated with lodging of police report and the matter is pending investigation. It is urged that the Commission can very well segregated the cases of candidates in respect of whom irregularities/illegalities/manipulation have been found/established during the course of investigation and that cancellation of entire recruitment was not necessary. By emphasising upon the process undertaken by the Commission for holding of recruitment it is suggested that out of three copies of OMR sheets available in respect of each candidate, who appeared in the examination, the first copy of OMR sheet has been scanned to ascertain merit of each candidate and the finding of variation in respect of 10% is based on its comparison with other set of OMR sheet maintained in the respective Treasury of 16 districts where the examination itself was conducted. The argument is that the OMR sheet maintained in the Treasury is absolutely unadulterated nor any material during the course of investigation has surfaced which may doubt the credibility of such OMR sheet and, therefore, the Commission could have proceeded by tallying the OMR sheet of selected candidate with the copy of OMR sheet maintained in the Treasury concerned and the selection of those candidates about whom no discrepancy is found ought to have been processed with appointment letters issued to them. The decision to cancel the recruitment is accordingly challenged on the ground of it being wholly irrational, unfounded and based on no material justifying such action. The decision to cancel the recruitment is accordingly challenged on the ground of it being wholly irrational, unfounded and based on no material justifying such action. Various judgments have also been relied upon in respect of petitioners' claim which shall be dealt with, later. 22. Sri Ajeet Kumar Singh, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Amit Manohar Sahai for the State and Sri Siddharth Singhal, learned counsel for the Commission submits, on the contrary, that the evidence collected during the investigation by the SIT reveals existence of large scale manipulation in the conduct of written examination which has rendered the entire recruitment process unworthy of reliance and vitiated in law and that the decision to cancel the recruitment suffers from no error and requires no interference by this Court. 23. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Akash Yadav for petitioners, Sri Radha Kant Ojha, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Jai Singh Yadav for petitioners, Sri Ajeet Kumar Singh, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Amit Manohar Sahai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and Sri Siddharth Singhal, learned counsel for the respondent Commission and have perused the materials brought on record. 24. The Commission is established by the State Government pursuant to a notification issued under Section 5(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection Act, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 2014'). The Commission is vested with the powers to conduct examination, hold interview, make selection of candidates by virtue of Section 15(1) of the Act of 2014. Direct recruitment to all posts in the grade pay of Rs. 4600 or below in the employment of the State is required to be made by the Commission in view of the notification dated 15.12.2014. 25. Uttar Pradesh Direct Recruitment to Group C Posts (Mode and Procedure) Rules, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules of 2015') have also been framed by the State vide notification dated 11.5.2015, in exercise of powers conferred under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Rule 8 of the Rules of 2015 specifies the procedure for direct recruitment to Group 'C' posts in the State including the syllabus, marks in the written examination/interview and further provides that the rules relating thereto shall be such as is prescribed by the 'Commission', from time to time, with approval of the Government. Rule 8 of the Rules of 2015 specifies the procedure for direct recruitment to Group 'C' posts in the State including the syllabus, marks in the written examination/interview and further provides that the rules relating thereto shall be such as is prescribed by the 'Commission', from time to time, with approval of the Government. The Commission in the Rules of 2015 is defined in rule 4(b) of Rules of 2015 to mean Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection Commission. 26. In exercise of powers conferred by Section 16 and 23 of the Act of 2014 the State has also notified the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection Commission (Procedure and Conduct of Business) Regulation, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as 'Regulation of 2015'). Regulation 7 thereof lays down the procedure for conduct of objective type test which reads as under: ''7. (1) To faciliate the use of computer technique for conducting the examination, preliminary examination or screening test, the Commission may get the objective type of question paper-cum-answer sheets prepared by drawing upon its own Question Bank or through the organization working in the field of recruitment or eminent and reliable psychometric institutes, expert bodies or expert in the field of psychometric education and objective type of question papers-cum-answer sheets prepared according to the syllabus of different examinations to be conducted by the Commission. (2) The Secretary or the Controller of Examination cum Joint Secretary as nominated by the Chairperson shall draw a list of the reputed and reliable psychometric institutes, expert bodies and experts of relevant fields including computer agencies and organizations functional in the field of recruitment, for the approval of the Commission. Computer agencies shall be required for the evaluation of answer sheets and compilation of examination results. (3) The Chairperson may select any one or more among psychometric institutes, expert bodies and organizations functional in the field of recruitment or one or more experts as per the requirement of the case from the list prepared under sub-rule (2) to prepare question paper-cum-answer sheets. He is free to select any computer agency for the evaluation of answer sheets and compilation of examination results. He is free to select any computer agency for the evaluation of answer sheets and compilation of examination results. (4) (a) If a particular instiute or expert body is selected for preparing of question papers-cum-answer sheet for a particular examination, the Secretary or the Controller of the Examination cum Joint Secretary nominated by the Chairperson shall get prepared three sets of every question paper and having received them in separate sealed envelopes keep them in his custody. (b) The Secretary or the Controller of the Examination cum Joint Secretary nominated by the Chairperson shall submit to the Chairperson three sealed envelopes in separate identical envelopes specifically designed for this purpose without marking any mark of identification on the envelopes after having appended his signatures thereon at the place therefor. (c) The Chairperson may choose any one of the three sealed and signed envelopes without opening it and handover it to the Secretary or the Controller of the Examination cum Joint Secretary and keep last two envelopes in his safe custody till the examination is over. (d) The Secretary or the Controller of the Examination cum Joint Secretary nominated by the Chairperson shall send the sealed envelopes so chosen by the Chairperson to the particular institute, expert body or press, as the case may be, for printing question paper-cum-answer sheets. Particular institute, expert body or press, as the case may be, shall be responsible for printing, proof reading and preparation of their packets for different examination centers as also for Commission's reserve under its seal in accordance with the direction furnished to it by the Secretary or the Controller of the Examination cum Joint Secretary. (5) (i) In case the Chairperson decides to utilize the Question Bank of the Commission wholly or partly for preparing the question paper, every such paper or part thereof, as the case may be, shall be prepared by three different experts. (ii) In case, the three question papers are wholly prepared by drawing on the question bank of the Commission, the question papers so prepared shall be sealed in three different identical envelopes which shall be kept by the Secretary or the Controller of the Examination cum Joint Secretary nominated by the Chairperson in his safe custody. (ii) In case, the three question papers are wholly prepared by drawing on the question bank of the Commission, the question papers so prepared shall be sealed in three different identical envelopes which shall be kept by the Secretary or the Controller of the Examination cum Joint Secretary nominated by the Chairperson in his safe custody. In case, the three question papers cannot be prepared wholly by drawing on Question Bank of the Commission, service of one or more experts will be utilized to prepare three different sets of part question papers. One set prepared by drawing on Question Bank and the other two sets prepared otherwise out of Question Bank. These sets of part question papers shall be handed over to the Secretary or the Controller of the Examination cum Joint Secretary against signed receipt in sealed envelopes for safe custody, clearly indicating the part of the syllabus covered in each set of the part question papers. (iii) The two sets of question papers so prepared under clause (ii) shall thereafter be entrusted to different experts or set of experts, as the case may be, for moderation, after merging the two sets of part question papers so as to cover the syllabus fully. The expert shall place them in three separate envelopes under his seal without making any mark of identification on the envelopes and hand them over to the Secretary or the Controller of the Examination cum Joint Secretary as the case may be. (iv) The Secretary or the Controller of the Examination cum Joint Secretary nominated by the Chairperson shall keep each of the three sealed envelopes in two separate but identical envelopes specifically designed for this purpose without making any mark of identification on the envelopes and convey his signatures thereon at the place reserved therefor and submit the same to the Chairperson. (v) The Chairperson may choose any one of the three sealed and signed envelopes without opening it shall hand over the same to the Secretary or the Controller of the Examination cum Joint Secretary and retain the other two envelopes in his safe custody till the examinations are over. (v) The Chairperson may choose any one of the three sealed and signed envelopes without opening it shall hand over the same to the Secretary or the Controller of the Examination cum Joint Secretary and retain the other two envelopes in his safe custody till the examinations are over. (6) (i) In case the Chairperson decides to take the services of an expert for preparing the question papers, every paper shall be prepared by three different expert or set of experts and handed over to the Secretary or the Controller of the Examination cum Joint Secretary as nominated by the Chairperson. (ii) Sealed envelopes so received from the experts shall be handed over by the Secretary or the Controller of the Examination cum Joint Secretary nominated by the Chairperson to one or more different experts, as per specific requirement in each case, approved by the Chairperson out of the list prepared under sub-regulation (20 against their signed and dated receipt, for moderation. (iii) The experts shall moderate all the two sets of question papers, place them in separate envelopes under their seal without making any mark of identification on the envelopes and hand them over to the Secretary or the Controller of the Examination cum Joint Secretary as nominated. (iv) The Secretary or the Controller of the Examination cum Joint Secretary nominated by the Chairperson shall keep each of the three sealed envelopes specifically designed for this purpose without making any mark of identification on the envelopes and append his signatures thereon at the place reserved therefor and submit the same to the Chairperson. (v) The Chairperson may choose any one of three sealed and signed envelopes without opening it, shall hand over the same to the Secretary or the Controller of the Examination cum Joint Secretary and retain the other two envelopes in his safe custody till the examinations are over. (v) The Chairperson may choose any one of three sealed and signed envelopes without opening it, shall hand over the same to the Secretary or the Controller of the Examination cum Joint Secretary and retain the other two envelopes in his safe custody till the examinations are over. (7) The Secretary or the Controller of the Examination cum Joint Secretary send the envelopes so chosen by the Chairperson under clause (v) of sub-regulation (5) or under clause (v) of sub-regulation (6) to an approved press which shall be responsible for printing of question paper-cum-answer sheets including proof reading and for preparing their packet for different examination centers as also towards Commission's reserves under its seal in accordance with the information furnished and directions given to it by the Secretary or the Controller of the Examination cum Joint Secretary. (8) (i) as per the direction of the Chairperson, Secretary or the Controller of the Examination cum Joint Secretary shall prepare a list of reliable presses for printing question paper-cum-answer sheets for the approval of the Chairperson. (ii) The Secretary shall choose any one of the presses aproved by the Chairperson under sub-regulgation (i) for printing question paper-cum-anshwer sheets for any particular examination. (iii) The office nominated by the Chairperson shall have access to the computer Agency with a view to ensuring that there is no mistake in the evaluation of answer sheets and the preparation of results. (iv) The Chairperson or his nominee will be associated with the moderation of questions. (v) The institute expert body or the press, as the case may be, shall be responsible for maintaining the secrecy of the question papers and the Secretary or the Controller of the Examination cum Joint Secretary shall issue necessary directions and take necessary precautions to ensure such secrecy.'' 27. The scheme for holding of objective type test, as per the above Regulation 7 clearly obligates the Commission to get objective type question paper-cum-answer sheets prepared by drawing upon its own Question Bank or through the organization working in the field of recruitment or eminent and reliable psychometric institutes, expert bodies or expert in the field of psychometric education and objective type of question papers-cum-answer sheets prepared according to the syllabus of different examinations to be conducted by the Commission. The Secretary or the Controller of Examination is expected to draw list of reputed and reliable psychometric institutes, expert bodies and experts of relevant fields including computer agencies and organizations functional in the field of recruitment, for the approval of the Commission. Engagement of computer agencies is permissible for evaluation of answer sheets and compilation of examination results. Final authority in the matter of selection is the Chairperson of the Commission. The scheme for objective type testing system to be followed by the Commission, therefore, permits engagement of outside agency for the limited purposes, in the manner specified in the Regulations. The primary responsibility under the Act of 2014 as also the Regulations of 2015 to conduct examination, hold interview and make selection however vests exclusively with the Commission. This, however, does not appear to have actually happened in the present recruitment. 28. The supplementary counter-affidavit filed by the Commission would go to show that the Commission entered into an agreement with the Agency and virtually all functions relating to conduct of recruitment was entrusted to the Agency itself. The scope of services to be provided has been specified in clause 2 of the agreement, which reads as under: ''2. Scope of Services: 2.1 Services: The scope of Services to be provided by TCS to Customer is as described in Schedule 2. TCS will host on TCS's Services Environment at TCS designated locations and/or deploy on designated Customer systems at Customer designated locations identified in Schedule 2, the TCS Application System, for provision of such Services. TCS reserves the right to modify the Services Environment without impacting the Services. The Services may commence on the Service Commencement Date identified in Schedule 1, unless the Parties otherwise agree. If the Parties desire to modify the Scope of Services in Schedule 2 in any manner, the Parties agree that such change to Schedule 2 and tis corresponding change to other Schedules hereto shall be implemented in accordance with the Change Control Procedure defined in Schedule 5 hereto. 2.2 Permitted Use of Services: Customers use of TCS Application System shall always be subject to the Use Terms stipulated in Schedule 3. 2.2 Permitted Use of Services: Customers use of TCS Application System shall always be subject to the Use Terms stipulated in Schedule 3. In case the TCS Application System includes a third party software (identified in Schedule 2) and where such third party licensor requires Customer to sign a license agreement, the Customer agrees to execute such third party software license agreement, which shall prevail upon any conflicting provisions herein. Such third party software license agreement shall become a part of this agreement.'' 29. Exhibit A to the agreement is the definition clause which has various schedules appended to it. Part A of Schedule-2 provides that Agency was responsible for setting and printing of question papers, designing printing and supplying OMR sheets, processing of OMR sheets including scanning evaluation and objection resolution. Preparation of merit list and uploading it on the website was also left to be Agency. Part-B of Schedule-2 describes the other works to be performed by the Agency and is extracted hereinafter: PART-B S. No. Description Details at 1. Conduct of Examination- Includes selection of well-equipped and reputated examination center, supply of examination centers management kits, Biometric capturing of each candidates finger print and photograph with their roll number. Deployment of static center supervisor and center manager, invigilator and other staff at each center. Providing instruction to examination centers. 30. Annexure-5 to Schedule-2 deals with conduct of examination and is extracted hereinafter: “Annexure-5: Conduct of Examination (Including providing well equipped centre, supply of examination Centre management kits, Biometric Capturing of candidates, deployment of static centre supervisor & centre manager and other staff at each center, providing instruction to the examination centers. Inviting of objection from the candidates and their resolution by the TCS through a software) (A) Proviiding well equipped examination centers a. Examination centres shall be finalized at least 30 days in advance in consultation wit UPSSSC. So that it may be checked before hand and local administrative authority are informed in advance. b. The centre should be well connected to railway station and bus stands. c. The Centres should be preferably government colleges/schools. d. It should be neat and clean secured place with proper ventilation, light and fan, fresh drinking water, proper sitting arrangement, fire-fighting instrument in working condition, first aid box and other basic amenities. e. It should have safe and secure place adequately guarded for keeping the examination papers and other related material. c. The Centres should be preferably government colleges/schools. d. It should be neat and clean secured place with proper ventilation, light and fan, fresh drinking water, proper sitting arrangement, fire-fighting instrument in working condition, first aid box and other basic amenities. e. It should have safe and secure place adequately guarded for keeping the examination papers and other related material. (B) Supply of Examination Centre Management Kits a. List of candidates with roll numbers appearing at each examination centre. b. Seating Plan. c. Room wise attendance sheets with roll numbers, photograph and signatures of candidate, with provision for pasting of a fresh colour. d. Room wise desk slips. e. Supply of various report forms which are to be filled by the centre in-charge. f. Supply of tamper proof packing material for the packing of Attendance Sheets and other materials comprising labelled envelopes for easy handling and administration. (C) Frisking and Biometrics a. Frisking of all candidates shall be ensured before entering in the examination centres. b. TCS shall capture the finger prints and photograph of all candidates appearing in examination which will be used to cross check the identity of the candidates at the next stage of examination (D) Co-ordination for Conduct of Examination 1. The TCS shall deploy city head in each district or as required depends on number of centres, centre manager in each centre or as required depends on number of candidates, invigilator-01 per 25 candidates & other staff at each centre as required. 2. TCS would conduct centre preparedness exercise a day before the exam with centre officials and representative of the Commission. 3. TCS shall prepare standard examination procedure in consulation with UPSSSC. For this purpose, TCS is required to prepare an examination manual, standard format for capturing information. 4. The TCS shall coordinate examination preparation at each venue, which will be include traiining, briefing, putting up signages and other administrative arrangements. 5. Ensure packing of answer sheets as per direction of the Commission.” 31. Instructions manual for conduct of recruitment in question has been published by the Commission, which is Annexure-2 to the supplementary counter-affidavit. It contains detailed instructions about plan of examination; general instructions in respect of recruitment; sitting plan etc. etc. 5. Ensure packing of answer sheets as per direction of the Commission.” 31. Instructions manual for conduct of recruitment in question has been published by the Commission, which is Annexure-2 to the supplementary counter-affidavit. It contains detailed instructions about plan of examination; general instructions in respect of recruitment; sitting plan etc. etc. The manner in which OMR sheets are to be brought to the examination centers; manner in which it would be opened and distributed amongst candidates as also the manner in which such OMR sheets would be collected from candidates and then sent to the Treasuries has been specified. The actual functions as per the above instructions, however, were already entrusted to be performed by the Agency. 32. The detailed procedure which is noted above would go to show that the Agency was virtually entrusted with entire function of holding examination from the stage of setting question paper; preparation of OMR sheets; its dispatch to centers; providing invigilators etc. for conduct of examination and also included collection of OMR sheet from candidates and bringing it to the Treasury as also having delivered it to the Commission's premises at Lucknow. The Commission appears to have entirely delegated its authority vested under the Statute to the Agency itself. 33. After the examination was conducted and the main OMR sheet was brought to Commission's office by following the procedure specified in the agreement and the instructions issued by the Commission, the OMR sheets were got scanned by the Agency. The evaluation process was accordingly concluded. It is at this stage that the Commission appears to have taken a decision on 28.1.2019 of getting first OMR sheet compared with the second copy of OMR sheet kept in the Treasury in the ratio of 1:10. As per the procedure followed the first copy/main OMR sheet was to be utilized for scanning and evaluating performance of a candidate while second copy was to be kept in the Treasury and third copy to be given to the candidate. It is only when OMR sheets on random basis were compared with the respective OMR sheets maintained in the Treasury in the ratio 1:10 to the available posts that discrepancy came to be noticed in respect of 136 candidates. The difference between the two OMR sheets was more than 10%. It is only when OMR sheets on random basis were compared with the respective OMR sheets maintained in the Treasury in the ratio 1:10 to the available posts that discrepancy came to be noticed in respect of 136 candidates. The difference between the two OMR sheets was more than 10%. It is thereafter that first information came to be lodged and later the SIT was assigned the job to investigate the allegations made in the conduct of examination. 34. The report of SIT has been produced before the Court. The SIT in its report has observed that 2256 original OMR sheets have been compared/matched with 1926 shortlisted candidates and it has been found that marks in the two OMR Sheets varied in respect of 1229 candidates. SIT after adding 136 candidates previously identified for difference in marks upon comparison of two OMR sheets has returned a clear finding that there exits variation in the OMR sheets of 1365 candidates out of 2256 OMR sheets compared with the corresponding OMR sheet maintained in the Treasury. The conclusion drawn by the SIT on the basis of above material is that variation between OMR sheet is not just limited to 136 candidate, as is sought to be suggested on behalf of petitioners, but is actually 1365 out of 2000 odd OMR sheets. Variation in the marks of nearly 70% of shortlisted candidates clearly puts a big question mark upon the fairness of entire written examination itself. The finding that there was manipulation with the original OMR sheet in the recruitment process therefore is clearly based on definite material existing on record and it cannot be argued that the cancellation of recruitment is not based upon any cogent material. 35. Although various judgments have been cited at the bar on the scope of recruitment Agency to cancel the examination, as a whole, in such circumstances, but I am not required to refer to all of them in view of the recent decision of the Supreme Court on the point in Sachin Kumar and Others vs. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board and Others, (2021) 4 SCC 631 : 2021 ADJ Online SC 0122. Almost all judgments relied upon by the parties have been extensively dealt with in Sachin Kumar's case (supra). After elaborately examining the judgment the Court observed as under in para 66 of the judgment: ''66. Almost all judgments relied upon by the parties have been extensively dealt with in Sachin Kumar's case (supra). After elaborately examining the judgment the Court observed as under in para 66 of the judgment: ''66. Recruitment to public services must command public confidence. Persons who are recruited are intended to fulfil public functions associated with the functioning of the Government. Where the entire process is found to be flawed, its cancellation may undoubtedly cause hardship to a few who may not specifically be found to be involved in wrong-doing. But that is not sufficient to nullify the ultimate decision to cancel an examination where the nature of the wrong-doing cuts through the entire process so as to seriously impinge upon the legitimacy of the examinations which have been held for recruitment. Both the High Court and the Tribunal have, in our view, erred in laying exclusive focus on the report of the second Committee which was confined to the issue of impersonation. The report of the second Committee is only one facet of the matter. The Deputy Chief Minister was justified in going beyond it and ultimately recommending that the entire process should be cancelled on the basis of the findings which were arrived at in the report of the first Committee. Those findings do not stand obliterated nor has the Tribunal found any fault with those findings. In this view of the matter, both the judgments of the Tribunal and the High Court are unsustainable.'' 36. This takes the Court to the next argument of Sri Khare that instead of cancelling the recruitment as a whole the authorities could have segregated cases of those candidates in respect of whom adverse material had surfaced and candidatures of remaining candidates could have been processed after having their OMR sheets tallied from the copies of OMR sheets maintained in the Treasury. This argument is advanced on the premise that there exists no interpolation or manipulation in the second copy of OMR sheets retained in the Treasury and its result being unadulterated, could be relied upon. It is also urged that the respondents have also proceeded on the premise that second copy of OMR Sheet contains the correct score. 37. The argument in that regard though appears attractive at the outset but does not merit any serious consideration once the facts of this case are evaluated in its entirety. It is also urged that the respondents have also proceeded on the premise that second copy of OMR Sheet contains the correct score. 37. The argument in that regard though appears attractive at the outset but does not merit any serious consideration once the facts of this case are evaluated in its entirety. First and foremost, it is to be observed that not just 136 candidates, but in respect of nearly 70% candidates shortlisted by the Commission, there is a difference in the marks secured by them as per OMR sheets maintained in the Treasury vis-a-vis their original OMR sheets on which the initial evaluation has been done. The difference in the marks of majority of candidates, whose copies are tallied, virtually renders the results of other candidates also highly suspect inasmuch as the shortlisting has been done only on the strength of first OMR sheet which is highly disputed and does not correctly reflect the inter se merit of all candidates who have had a shot at the exam. In large number of candidates the difference in the marks is more than 10% between the marks secured in two OMR sheets. In a competitive examination of present kind where more than 9 lac candidates have appeared, even 1 or 2 percent variation in the marks would make great differences in the actual merit of candidates. Since the short-listing of petitioners is based only upon scanning of first copy of OMR Sheet, which itself is not found reliable, the entire process culminating in petitioners' shortlisting for their consideration for appointment is found flawed. 38. The premise that the OMR sheets maintained in the Treasury contains no error and is worthy of reliance also needs to be examined in order to better appreciate petitioners' contention. 39. The Commission in its counter-affidavit has annexed the agreement executed by it with the Agency which would clearly indicated that the work of collecting OMR sheets from candidates and its dispatch to the Treasury was performed by the Agency itself. Annexure-5 providing for conduct of examination would go to show that providing of examination centers; supply of examination centers management kit; fixing biometrics and coordination for conduct of examination was all left to be performed by the Agency. Ensuring packing of OMR sheets was also a work to be performed by the Agency. Annexure-5 providing for conduct of examination would go to show that providing of examination centers; supply of examination centers management kit; fixing biometrics and coordination for conduct of examination was all left to be performed by the Agency. Ensuring packing of OMR sheets was also a work to be performed by the Agency. The instructions issued by Commission are also placed on record by way of supplementary counter-affidavit which specifies the process to be followed for dispatch of confidential parcels (to be kept in sealed boxes) to Commission in following words: ^^ijh{kk lekfIr ij vksŒ,eŒvkjŒ ,oe~ ijh{kk iqfLrdk dk ,df=r djuk%& ¼1½ ikapoh ?kaVh ds ckn d{k varjh{kd ?kks"k.kk djsxk fd ijh{kk lekfIr esa dsoy nl feuV 'ks"k gS vkSj ijh{kk d{k ds njokts can dj nksA ¼2½ NBh ?kaVh ds ckn d{k varjh{kd ?kks"k.kk djsa fd le; lekIr gks x;k gS fy[kuk can djsA vksŒ,eŒvkjŒ 'khV ,oa Á'u iqfLrdk dks ,df=r djsaA ¼3½ vH;fFkZ;ksa ls Áos'k i= ,df=r ugha fd;k tk,xkA ¼4½ d{k varjh{kd vksŒ,eŒvkjŒ dh ewyÁfr] Á'u iqfLrdk ,oa vksŒ,eŒvkjŒ dh vkfQl dkih ,oa vH;fFkZ;ksa dh vVsaMsal 'khV ij mifLFkfr dk vkil esa feyku djuk lqfuf'pr djsaA feyku ds i'pkr vH;FkhZ dks vksŒ,eŒvkjŒ dh dSaMhMsV dkih okil dj nsaA ¼5½ vxj vuqfpr lk/kuksa dk Á;ksx djrk gqvk vH;FkhZ ik;k tkrk gS rks vuQs;j feUl lfVZfQdsV ij dsUæ i;Zos{kd ds gLrk{kj gksus ds mijkUr gh vH;FkhZ dks ijh{kk d{k ls tkus dh vuqefr nsuk lqfuf'pr djsaA ¼6½ ÁR;sd vH;FkhZ ls ewy vksŒ,eŒvkjŒ] vkfQl dkih vksŒ,eŒvkjŒ] Á'u iqfLrdk ,oa vVsaMsal 'khV ,df=r djuk lqfuf'pr djsaA ¼7½ jksy uEcj ds Øe esa ewy vksŒ,eŒvkjŒ] vkfQl dkih vksŒ,eŒvkjŒ] Á'u iqfLrdk ,oa vVsaMsal 'khV dh x.kuk djds dsUæ i;Zos{kd dks lkSaiuk lqfuf'pr djsaA ¼8½ ;fn dksbZ vH;FkhZ viuh ewy vksŒ,eŒvkjŒ] Á'u iqfLrdk ;k vksŒ,eŒvkjŒ dh vkfQl dkWih ys tkrk gS rks mldh ftEesnkjh d{k varjh{kd dh gksxhA ¼9½ fdlh Hkh laØked chekjh ls ihfM+r dksbZ vH;FkhZ tSls Leky ikWDl] Ýw vkfn dks vU; vH;fFkZ;ksa ds lkFk dejs esa cSBus dh vuqefr ugha nh tkuh pkfg,A bl rjg ds ekeys esa lansg gS rks mldh lwpuk rRdky dsUæ i;Zo{ksd dks nsuh pkfg,A rkfd mlds cSBus dh O;oLFkk ,d vyx d{k esa dh tk ldsA ¼10½ fdlh Hkh vU; ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa dsUæ i;Zos{kd }kjk fn;s x;s funsZ'kksa dk gh ikyu djuk pkfg,A** 40. The Commission for the conduct of examination apparently envisioned a scheme for collaboration with Agency to conduct the recruitment in such a manner that possibility of manipulation etc. is eliminated and fairness and transparency in conduct of examination is maintained. However, from the admitted materials on record it is apparent that large scale manipulation has happened and out of about 2000 OMR sheets evaluated on the basis of OMR sheets maintained at two different places there exists a difference in the case of nearly 70%. A definite finding is yet to be returned as to at which stage the manipulation has occurred. It is also not clear that as to who exactly is responsible for allowing such large scale manipulation to occur particularly when a full proof process was otherwise thought of. The possibility of manipulation in the OMR sheets maintained in the Treasuries also cannot be ruled out since the process for collection of OMR sheets and its dispatch to the Treasuries also had active participation of the Agency engaged in the process. The Court is thus not convinced with the argument of petitioners that OMR sheets maintained in the Treasury are sacrosanct or could exclusively be relied upon for declaration of result. 41. In the examination of present kind where more than 9 lac candidates have appeared the disparity in marks have surfaced for nearly 70% candidates when cross-checking of OMR sheets is resorted to for about 2000 candidates. The evidence leaves no room of doubt that irregularities in the process have taken place at a systemic level which vitiates the sanctity of the recruitment/examination. The entire examination is highly suspect. At this stage of the investigation only this much can be said with certainty that the examination lacked fairness and transparency and large scale manipulations have actually happened. The decision taken in the circumstances to cancel the entire recruitment, therefore, cannot be said to be without any basis, arbitrary or unreasonable. 42. The Commission being statutory authority has been enjoined with responsibility of conducting public examination and detailed procedure have been laid down for exercise of such statutory responsibility by it. The decision taken in the circumstances to cancel the entire recruitment, therefore, cannot be said to be without any basis, arbitrary or unreasonable. 42. The Commission being statutory authority has been enjoined with responsibility of conducting public examination and detailed procedure have been laid down for exercise of such statutory responsibility by it. Though in modern times when the processes have gone complex the engagement of private agencies for specified purposes cannot be taken as anathema but placing entire responsibility upon the private agency does not appear to be in keeping with the object for which the Commission itself has been constituted. The Commission ought to have been more circumspect in delegating its essential functions to an outside agency inasmuch as control which otherwise is expected to be exercised by statutory body would be lost. The manner in which Commission has virtually abdicated all its function to a private Agency, therefore, requires serious deliberations at the level of the Commission and the State Government. 43. The Court hopes and trusts that being statutory authority and armed with the experience of present kind the Commission would do well to seriously ponder and reconsider the mechanism to be followed for holding future examinations. 44. Our country is having large population of unemployed youth who work tirelessly to secure public employment. Their faith in the impartiality of recruitment must be maintained at all costs. Since in the facts and circumstances of the present case this Court finds that the decision to cancel recruitment is based upon a bona fide assessment of materials placed on record, which cannot be said to be arbitrary or mala fide, therefore, no interference by this Court is warranted in the decision taken by the Commission to discontinue the recruitment exercise. 45. Though it may happen that some of the candidates may suffer but where large scale irregularities are suggestive of malice eroding credibility of the process itself, the cancellation of recruitment by a competent body is not required to be interfered with lightly. Para 35 of the judgment in the case of Sachin Kumar (supra) aptly considers this aspect and this Court deems it appropriate to refer to it and is reproduced hereinafter: ''35. In deciding this batch of SLPs, we need not re-invent the wheel. Para 35 of the judgment in the case of Sachin Kumar (supra) aptly considers this aspect and this Court deems it appropriate to refer to it and is reproduced hereinafter: ''35. In deciding this batch of SLPs, we need not re-invent the wheel. Over the last five decades, several decisions of this Court have dealt with the fundamental issue of when the process of an examination can stand vitiated. Essentially, the answer to the issue turns upon whether the irregularities in the process have taken place at a systemic level so as to vitiate the sanctity of the process. There are cases which border upon or cross-over into the domain of fraud as a result of which the credibility and legitimacy of the process is denuded. This constitutes one end of the spectrum where the authority conducting the examination or convening the selection process comes to the conclusion that as a result of supervening event or circumstances, the process has lost its legitimacy, leaving no option but to cancel it in its entirety. Where a decision along those lines is taken, it does not turn upon a fact-finding exercise into individual acts involving the use of mal-practices or unfair means. Where a recourse to unfair means has taken place on a systemic scale, it may be difficult to segregate the tainted from the untainted participants in the process. Large scale irregularities including those which have the effect of denying equal access to similarly circumstanced candidates are suggestive of a malaise which has eroded the credibility of the process. At the other end of the spectrum are cases where some of the participants in the process who appear at the examination or selection test are guilty of irregularities. In such a case, it may well be possible to segregate persons who are guilty of wrong-doing from others who have adhered to the rules and to exclude the former from the process. In such a case, those who are innocent of wrong-doing should not pay a price for those who are actually found to be involved in irregularities. By segregating the wrong-doers, the selection of the untainted candidates can be allowed to pass muster by taking the selection process to its logical conclusion. In such a case, those who are innocent of wrong-doing should not pay a price for those who are actually found to be involved in irregularities. By segregating the wrong-doers, the selection of the untainted candidates can be allowed to pass muster by taking the selection process to its logical conclusion. This is not a mere matter of administrative procedure but as a principle of service jurisprudence it finds embodiment in the constitutional duty by which public bodies have to act fairly and reasonably. A fair and reasonable process of selection to posts subject to the norm of equality of opportunity under Article 16(1) is a constitutional requirement. A fair and reasonable process is a fundamental requirement of Article 14 as well. Where the recruitment to public employment stands vitiated as a consequence of systemic fraud or irregularities, the entire process becomes illegitimate. On the other hand, where it is possible to segregate persons who have indulged in mal-practices and to penalise them for their wrong-doing, it would be unfair to impose the burden of their wrong-doing on those who are free from taint. To treat the innocent and the wrong-doers equally by subjecting the former to the consequence of the cancellation of the entire process would be contrary to Article 14 because unequals would then be treated equally. The requirement that a public body must act in fair and reasonable terms animates the entire process of selection. The decisions of the recruiting body are hence subject to judicial control subject to the settled principle that the recruiting authority must have a measure of discretion to take decisions in accordance with law which are best suited to preserve the sanctity of the process. Now it is in the backdrop of these principles, that it becomes appropriate to advert to the precedents of this Court which hold the field.'' 46. For the reasons and deliberations, aforesaid, this bunch of writ petitions fail and are dismissed. No order is passed as to costs.