JUDGMENT : Soumitra Saikia, J. 1. This Writ Appeal by the State of Assam is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 07.05.2019 passed in WPC No.4532/2016 and WPC 2428/2017 whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the two writ petitions setting aside the decision of the State Government to cancel the select list as well as setting aside the impugned Notice dated 17.08.2016 issued by the State of Assam expressing their intention to cancel the select list. 2. The petitioners had appeared for a selection process conducted by the State of Assam for selection to the post of Assam Forest Protection Force (AFPF) constables in the Forest Department, which was advertised on 23.07.2014 and 24.01.2016. The petitioners were a part of the selected candidates, whose names had figured in the selection list prepared by the Government. However, by notice dated 17.08.2016 the Government proposed to cancel the select list on the ground that such list suffered from infirmities of not following the constitutional provisions relating to reservation and also that the same is not in conformity with the Judgments pronounced by the Apex Court regarding the reservation laws and rules. 3. W.P.(C) No. 4532/2016 was filed assailing the notice dated 17.08.2016, whereby a select list was proposed to be cancelled. W.P.(C) 2428/2017 was filed assailing the subsequent advertisement dated 14.04.2017, whereby 132 post of Assam Forest Protection Force (AFPF) constables in the Forest Department, was advertised. The petitioners were apprehensive that in the event of the subsequent advertisement being permitted to be proceeded with, the rights of the petitioners accruing on account of the select list would be frustrated in the event the court upholds their challenge made to the Notice dated 17.08.2016 proposing to cancel the selection conducted earlier in point of time by the State of Assam for 104 posts of Assam Forest Protection Force (AFPF) constables in the Forest Department. The petitioners contended that there was no allegation of illegality or fraudulent act being resorted to by the petitioners or any other candidates who had appeared before the selection pursuant to which they were selected and their names appeared in the selection list. 4. The petitioners contended that the selection process did not suffer from any serious anomalies or that it had violated any rule relating to reservation and/or Judgments rendered by the Apex Court. 4. The petitioners contended that the selection process did not suffer from any serious anomalies or that it had violated any rule relating to reservation and/or Judgments rendered by the Apex Court. The only ground of the government proposing to cancel the selection/select list was on the basis of a communication dated 04.07.2016 issued by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and Head of Forest Force, (PCCF & HoFF) to the Principal Secretary, Government of Assam, Environment and Forest Department, Assam. The said communication was issued enclosing a note showing certain anomalies, irregularities and violation of the rules. The appellants as the respondents duly contested the case by filing their counter affidavits and enclosing the various communications with respect to the selection made in the select list. The State of Assam contended that the selection committees were constituted by the then Minister of the Forest Department himself. It further contended that the anomalies pointed out in the note appended to the letter dated 04.07.2016 are justified and in view of such grave anomalies referred to in the said note, the State of Assam is justified in proposing to cancel the select list. 5. The learned Single Judge upon hearing the counsels for the parties accepted the submissions of the respondents as petitioners that there was no allegation of any wrong doing or unfair practice or fraudulent activity committed by any of the candidates and as such the said selection could not be vitiated by malpractice. The learned Single Judge held that over representation and under representation of the districts mentioned as one of the anomalies is in itself not indicative of any wrong doing. It was held by the learned Single Judge that although the anomalies may be suggestive of irregularity or malpractice that by itself is not sufficient to arrive at a definitive conclusion that malpractice had occurred. In the absence of any concrete credible materials to show commission of any mal practice or fraudulent activities the same cannot be a foundation for invalidating select list. 6. The learned counsels for the parties have been heard. The Judgment of the learned Single Judge has been carefully perused. In the absence of any concrete credible materials to show commission of any mal practice or fraudulent activities the same cannot be a foundation for invalidating select list. 6. The learned counsels for the parties have been heard. The Judgment of the learned Single Judge has been carefully perused. During the course of the hearing the learned counsel for the appellants on a pointed query made by the Court, fairly submitted that as on date there are no Rules governing the selection and/or service conditions in respect of the post of Assam Forest Protection Force (AFPF) constables in the Forest Department. He also submitted that the selection conducted earlier was also conducted without framing any rules. We find that the sole ground agitated by the appellant/State in challenging the order of the impugned of the learned Single Judge, is the communication dated 04.07.2016, wherein a note was appended and the anomalies as found by the Assam Forest Protection Force were indicated. The anomalies indicated in the said letter are four fold namely, (i) there was over representation in 11 districts of the State in which a total of 104 candidates were selected and there has been complete non representation in respect of 16 districts in which not a single candidate have been selected, (ii) Although 3518 candidates were called for the interview against 104 post making it a ratio of about 34 candidates per post. However, the number of candidates required to be called for under various categories, like Schedule Caste, Schedule Tribes, Schedule Tribes (Plains) etc. have been grossly violative of the Reservation Rules and opposed to the law laid down by the Apex Court, (iii) Against 50 General category posts, 34 Reserve category candidates were counted against the General quota of seats and (iv) A specific case of a candidate namely, Doli Kalita, (Roll No. 18079) who was shown to be selected although her position in the merit list was shown at serial no. 162. Therefore her selection within 50 vacancies cannot be treated to be regular and proper. 7. It is noticed that in the said note appended to the letter dated 04.07.2016 there is a reference to the Rules, however, it is not specific as to which rules have been referred to in order to arrive at a finding that the selection was violative of the Rules. 7. It is noticed that in the said note appended to the letter dated 04.07.2016 there is a reference to the Rules, however, it is not specific as to which rules have been referred to in order to arrive at a finding that the selection was violative of the Rules. As discussed above, it is not disputed by the appellants that there were no Rules framed for governing the selection and service conditions of Assam Forest Protection Force constables when the selection were made nor have any rules being framed till date governing the service. What is seen from a perusal of the pleadings on record is that although the anomalies were brought to the notice of the State vide letter dated 04.07.2016 by the Assam Forest Protection Force, no enquiry was directed to be conducted by the State in respect of the said anomalies. It is also seen that there is no reference to any proceedings initiated against the erring officials who may be responsible for committing/permitting such anomalies as alleged. 8. In support of his contentions the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the Judgments of the Apex Court rendered in Union of India & Others Vs. Tarun K. Singh & Others reported in (2003) 11 SCC 768 , Union of India & Others Vs. O. Chakradhar reported in (2002) 3 SCC 146 and Jitendra Kumar and Others Vs. State of Haryana and another reported in (2008) 2 SCC 161 . 9. In Tarun K.Singh (Supra) the interference by the Apex Court upheld the cancellation of the selection process by the Government in view of the enquiry held by the departmental authorities, which revealed gross irregularities and illegalities in the process of selection. Similarly, in O.Chakradhar (Supra) the Apex Court sustained the cancellation of the selection process pursuant to a report of the CBI which revealed that the whole selection smacks of malafides and arbitrariness. In Jitendra Kumarand Others (Supra), the selection process was found to be tainted upon an enquiry initiated by the Vigilance Bureau. In the facts of the present case, there was no enquiry conducted by the department in respect of the illegalities alleged to have been committed during the selection process. In Jitendra Kumarand Others (Supra), the selection process was found to be tainted upon an enquiry initiated by the Vigilance Bureau. In the facts of the present case, there was no enquiry conducted by the department in respect of the illegalities alleged to have been committed during the selection process. No order or Office Memorandum or Notification has been placed by the appellants to show that an enquiry into the alleged illegalities/irregularities in the selection process is initiated through the department or through any independent agency. The communication dated 04.07.2016 categorically requested the Government to examine the issue in its entirety and issue necessary order for further action to be taken into the matter. Pursuant to the such letter indicating the anomalies, no enquiry was instituted by the Government in respect of the said selection process. It is also not the case of the appellants that the communication dated 04.07.2016 referring to the alleged anomalies stated to have been committed in the selection process was pursuant to any such enquiry directed to be conducted by the Government in respect of the said selection process. The discrepancies alleged to have been committed during the selection process was attributed to the then Minister of the Department as well as the selection committees constituted. It is also seen that there is no challenge by any unsuccessful candidate alleging corrupt practice and fraudulent activity resorted to by the selected candidates including the petitioner in respect of the present selection process of the select list. 10. The selection process is stated to have been concluded as far back as February, 2016. There was no enquiry conducted by the Government to find out the veracity of the irregularities or illegalities alleged. The letter dated 04.07.2016 which highlighted the anomalies, cannot be treated to be definitive finding of fact arrived at by the Government in the absence of any enquiry instituted by the Government. There is also no subsequent Communication or any order available on the record which reveal that the anomalies stated to be present in the select list cannot be rectified by the authorities without annulling the entire select list by re-fixing or re-allocation of the candidates selected in accordance of their merit, category and status upon due notice to those who are likely to be affected. No such finding of fact had been arrived at by the State pursuant to any enquiry conducted by any duly constituted enquiry Committee by the Government. 11. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present proceedings, in the absence of any specific conclusions arrived at by the Government through a duly constituted enquiry Committee and in the absence of any Rules governing the selection procedure and recruitment to Assam Forest Protection Force (AFPC), the conclusions arrived at by the learned Single Judge cannot be faulted with. The learned Single Judge on the facts of the case has taken possible view permissible in law. We do not find any ground to come to a conclusion, different than the one arrived at by the learned Single Judge in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. As such in an intra court appeal where the learned Single Judge arrives at a possible conclusion permissible in law, the appellate court will not interfere unless both sides agree for a fairer approach relief or are the order of the learned Single Judge is perverse in law. 12. In view of the above discussions, we are not persuaded to take a contrary view to that taken by the learned Single Judge in the appeal. The Writ Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. 13. No order as to cost.