ORDER : Satyen Vaidya, J. Petitioner has filed the instant petition for the grant of following substantive reliefs: (i) Issue a writ of certiorari to quash Annexure P-8 i.e. impugned notice dated 06.03.2021. (ii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents authorities not to implement the Annexure P-8 i.e. impugned notice dated 06.03.2021. (iii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents authorities to declare the result for the post of Lower Division Clerk (LDC) on regular basis within time bound manner. 2. Case of petitioner is that vide advertisement dated 26.11.2020, respondent No.3 invited applications from eligible candidates for selection to one post of Office Superintendent and two posts of Lower Division Clerk (for short, LDC). One post out of two posts of LDC, was reserved for the candidates from OBC category. Petitioner being eligible had also applied for the post of LDC in OBC category. Petitioner appeared in the written test on 15.1.2021. He also participated in the skill test and computer test etc. 3. Petitioner has contended that he along with other candidates were informed that the result would be published on the website of respondent No.3 within 10-15 days, after approval of the selection by the Board i.e. respondent No.2. The grievance of the petitioner is that till the date of filing of petition i.e. 09.03.2021, the result was not declared nor the candidates including petitioner were informed about the same. Petitioner made a request to respondent No.3 through e-mail with regard to publication of result but without any favour. On 06.03.2021, respondent No.3, published a notice (Annexure P-8), whereby the selection process for the posts of Office Superintendent and LDC, was declared cancelled on administrative reasons. 4. Aggrieved against the cancellation of selection process vide letter dated 06.03.2021(Annexure P-8), petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant petition. The grounds of challenge as laid by petitioner can be summarised are as under: - (a) The cancellation of selection process on administrative reasons is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and against Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. (b) The selection process was conducted under the CCTV surveillance in a transparent manner. The action of respondents in playing with the career of petitioner is illegal. (b) The selection process was conducted under the CCTV surveillance in a transparent manner. The action of respondents in playing with the career of petitioner is illegal. (c) The impugned notice dated 06.03.2021(Annexure P-8), is alleged to have been issued only to harass the petitioner and other candidates and to give undue favour to favorites of the respondents. (d) There was no administrative exigency which could warrant the cancellation of selection process. (e) The action of respondents has been alleged to be unfair, illegal and arbitrary on the ground that the respondents had acted under political influence. 5. Per contra, respondents have filed a short reply. It has been stated that though the selection process was held under CCTV surveillance by adhering to all norms of transparency, yet the same had to be cancelled on administrative grounds. The proceedings of the selection Board were not approved by the Chairman, Local Board of Administration for the reason that number of discrepancies were found in the conduct of examination for the post of Office Superintendent and LDC. Consequently, the fresh process for recruitment was directed to be initiated. Respondents also placed on record instructions dated 10.09.2021, disclosing thereby the nature of illegalities found in the selection process. It has also been mentioned that in view of the illegalities found in the selection process, an investigation was contemplated. 6. Petitioner in his rejoinder has denied the averments made in the reply of respondents and has reiterated his contention in the petition. Petitioner has further detailed the manner in which the selection process was conducted. It has been alleged that respondent No.2, had no power to direct the fresh recruitment for the advertised posts. According to petitioner, respondent No.3 is the appointing authority and respondent No.2 is only approving authority. It has further been emphasized that the decision of respondents to cancel the selection process was not bona fide. The process was undertaken and completed strictly in accordance with the prescribed standard operating procedure. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Solicitor General of India representing the respondents. 8. Petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking writ of certiorari for annulling and quashing the impugned notice dated 06.03.2021 (Annexure P-8), which declared cancellation of the selection process. Writ of mandamus, as noticed above, has also been prayed. 9. 8. Petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking writ of certiorari for annulling and quashing the impugned notice dated 06.03.2021 (Annexure P-8), which declared cancellation of the selection process. Writ of mandamus, as noticed above, has also been prayed. 9. The recruitment process, as per respondents, was infected with serious malpractices. One of the contentions of respondents in this regard is that certain inputs were available with them which raised serious issues regarding authenticity in preparation of the question papers and also their secrecy. 10. As noticed above, a proper investigation is contemplated into the allegations. That being so, this Court will not venture into the question of fact which are intricately disputed. The matter requires investigation and it will not be proper for this Court to enter into the arena of adjudication. 11. The relief as sought by petitioner is premature, especially, when no tangible material has been placed on record by petitioner to substantiate his contentions. It cannot be commented upon at this stage, as to whether, the material available with respondents, on the basis of which the process has been cancelled, was sufficient on the touch stone of objectivity. As noticed above, in absence of any material pricking the conscience of this Court, nothing can be presumed against the respondents. The allegations of political influence and mala fides are not only vague but have remained totally unsubstantiated. 12. Even otherwise, the petitioner’s right to file this petition is questionable. Petitioner had only participated in the selection process, the result of which remained undeclared. The petitioner cannot be said to have acquired any right before his selection or appointment to challenge the cancellation of selection process. The fact of the matter remains that the selection process was not completed and before that it was ordered to be cancelled. Petitioner has not disputed that respondent No.2 was the approving authority; therefore, his contention that the cancellation of selection process by respondent No.2 was without authority is devoid of merit. Reference in this regard can be made to para 4 of the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India and others VS. Tarun K. Singh and others, (2003) 11 SCC 768, which reads as under: - “4. Reference in this regard can be made to para 4 of the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India and others VS. Tarun K. Singh and others, (2003) 11 SCC 768, which reads as under: - “4. The question for consideration is whether the learned single Judge of Allahabad High Court was justified in interfering with an order of cancellation passed by the competent authority and direct that the process of selection should be completed. Needless to mention that subsequent to the order of cancellation, in view of the allegation of malpractice, the departmental authorities have held an enquiry into the matter and the result of that enquiry was revealed gross irregularities and illegalities as referred to in the judgment of the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court. Consequently, the process of selection which stands vitiated by adoption of large scale malpractice to a public office, cannot be permitted to be sustained by Court of Law. That apart, an individual applicant for any particular post does not get a right to be enforced by a Mandamus unless and until he is selected in the process of selection and gets the letter of appointment. In the case in hand, much before the so-called list of selection was approved by the Railway Board, the order of cancellation had emanated on the basis of complaints received from so many quarters. In view of the subsequent findings of the enquiry committee which has gone into the matter, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the learned single Judge of Allahabad High Court was wholly in error in issuing the direction in question and, therefore, the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court was fully justified in interfering with the said order of learned single Judge of Allahabad High Court. The Division Bench of Calcutta High Court committed error in following the judgment of learned single judge of Allahabad High Court. The judgment of Division Bench of Calcutta High Court is set aside and the judgment of Division Bench of Allahabad High Court is upheld. In the circumstances, we allow the Union's appeals and dismiss the appeals filed on behalf of the individual candidates. The appeals are disposed of accordingly. Any other question of law remains open.” 13. The judgment of Division Bench of Calcutta High Court is set aside and the judgment of Division Bench of Allahabad High Court is upheld. In the circumstances, we allow the Union's appeals and dismiss the appeals filed on behalf of the individual candidates. The appeals are disposed of accordingly. Any other question of law remains open.” 13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find no merit in the instant petition and the same is accordingly dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any.