ORDER : 1. Since, the issues raised in all these petitions and reliefs claimed therein are same and same were heard together, and are being disposed of vide this common order. 2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the issuance of Office Memorandum dated 4.2.2019, issued under the signatures of Deputy Secretary (TE) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh and order dated 5.2.2019 issued by Department of Technical Education, Vocational and Industrial Training, Sundernagar, whereby entire process of recruitment /selection to the post of instructors/trainers for different trades in ITI under Student Welfare Fund in Sept 2018 came to be cancelled, petitioners herein have approached this court in the instant proceedings filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, praying therein for following main relief(s). Prayers in CWP No. 2962 of 2019 and CWP No. 6804 of 2021 “In view of the submission made hereinabove, it is most humbly prayed that present petition may kindly be allowed and impugned memorandum order dated 4.02.2019 and letter dated 05.02.2019 may kindly be set-aside and quashed. Further, respondent may kindly be directed to restore the selection process and appoint the petitioners against their respective post to which their names are sponsored vide letter dated 7.12.2019.” Prayer in CWP No. 6877 of 2021 and CWP No. 6804 of 2021 “In view of the submission made herein above it is most humbly prayed that present petition may kindly be allowed and impugned office order 11.09.2019, memorandum order dated 4.02.2019 and letter dated 05.02.2019 may kindly be set-aside and quashed. Further, respondent may kindly be directed to restore the selection process and appoint the petitioners against their respective post to which their names are sponsored vide letter dated 7.12.2019.” 3. For clarity, facts, averments and documents mentioned in CWP No. 2962 of 2019, are being discussed herein below. 4. Further, respondent may kindly be directed to restore the selection process and appoint the petitioners against their respective post to which their names are sponsored vide letter dated 7.12.2019.” 3. For clarity, facts, averments and documents mentioned in CWP No. 2962 of 2019, are being discussed herein below. 4. Facts, shorn of unnecessary details but relevant for the adjudication of the cases at hand are that pursuant to the approval received from Government of Himachal Pradesh vide letter dated 3.5.2018 (Annexure P-1) to fill up various posts under Student Welfare Fund/IMC in Government Industrial Training Centres, Director, Technical Education, Vocational and Industrial Training, constituted zone wise Selection Committees vide office letter dated 30.8.2018 (Annexure P-2), with a direction to all the Chairmen of the Selection Committees i.e. Principals, Industrial Training Institutes at Sundernagar, Shahpur, Shimla and Udaipur to complete the entire process of selection strictly as per NCVT norms. In terms of aforesaid direction, Selection Committees conducted the selection process in their respective zones. Selection Committees recommended the names of selected candidates and vide communication dated 7.12.2018, Annexure P-5, Director of Technical Education, Vocational and Industrial Training sent communications to the Principal(s) of the concerned Industrial Training Centre to intimate selected candidates to report to their office alongwith certificates of educational qualifications in original and requisite experience certificates duly signed by the competent Authority within fifteen days or else it would be assumed that the candidate is not interested to join. It was further stipulated that the certificates/ all relevant documents are to be verified by the Principal concerned in respect of sponsored candidates before issuing engagement order and Principal shall be solely responsible for the same. 5. After recommendations made by the Selection Committees, some of the candidates, who had participated in the selection process, lodged complaint (Annexure P-6) to the Hon’ble Prime Minister of India, Hon’ble Chief Minister and Hon’ble Chief Justice of Himachal Pradesh alleging therein irregularities in the selection process. Complainants alleged that no proper procedure was followed, while conducting examination and members of the Selection Committees selected their own relatives. Taking cognizance of the complaint, matter was got enquired by the Director of Technical Education. 6. Complainants alleged that no proper procedure was followed, while conducting examination and members of the Selection Committees selected their own relatives. Taking cognizance of the complaint, matter was got enquired by the Director of Technical Education. 6. Shri Jogender Singh, Joint Director at the relevant time, was directed to enquire into the matter, who after having associated all the stake holders i.e. complainants and staff responsible for conducting selection process conducted inquiry and submitted his report to the Director, who vide letter dated 21.12.2018, sent the same to the Government for necessary action. On the basis of Inquiry report, vide memorandum dated 4.2.2019 (Annexure P-7), Government directed the Directorate of Technical Education to cancel the entire selection process forthwith. 7. Complying with the aforesaid direction issued by the Government, Director, Technical Education issued directions to the Heads of Zonal Selection Committees and Industrial Training Centre, vide letter dated 5.2.2019 (Annexure P-8) thereby canceling the entire selection process. 8. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid decision taken by the Director Technical Education, some of the petitioners three in number, filed an Original Application No. 517 of 2019 titled as Krishma Verma and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, which was disposed of by the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal vide order dated 18.7.2019, reserving liberty to the petitioners therein to file comprehensive representation to the department concerned with further direction to the respondents to decide the same expeditiously by way of speaking order. 9. In compliance to aforesaid order dated 18.7.2019, Department after having afforded opportunity of hearing to the petitioners in that case passed detailed speaking order dated 11.9.2019 (Annexure R-1, of reply of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 page 225) rejecting the representation filed by applicants in Original Application and upholding the decision of the Government to cancel the selection process. Besides above, petitioners including those three persons, who had earlier approached erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by way of OA No. 517 of 2019, approached this court by way of instant petition, praying therein to quash and set aside order dated 4.2.2019 and letter dated 5.2.2019, whereby Government of Himachal Pradesh decided to cancel the selection process. Besides above, petitioners including those three persons, who had earlier approached erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by way of OA No. 517 of 2019, approached this court by way of instant petition, praying therein to quash and set aside order dated 4.2.2019 and letter dated 5.2.2019, whereby Government of Himachal Pradesh decided to cancel the selection process. However, having realized subsequently that three of the petitioners had already approached erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by way of OA No. 517 of 2019, and pursuant to order passed by tribunal, respondents passed a speaking order, petitioners herein made application seeking therein to withdraw petition on behalf of petitioners mentioned at Sr. Nos. 48, 49 and 50. Vide order dated 4.7.2020, this court permitted aforesaid petitioners to withdraw the petition. However, the fact remains that in the instant petition, no challenge ever came to be laid to order dated 11.9.2019 (Annexure R-Z) passed by Director Technical Education in terms of order dated 18.7.2019 passed by learned Tribunal below. 10. During proceedings of case, it transpired that the persons namely Rachna Jagta and others laid challenge to aforesaid order dated 11.9.2019 by way of CWP No. 6877 of 2021, which is also being decided alongwith these petitions. Since despite their having been declared successful in the selection process, initiated in the year 2018, pursuant to approval given by Government of Himachal Pradesh vide communication dated 3.5.2018, petitioners were not given appointment, as such, they have approached this court in the instant proceedings, primarily on following grounds: (a) No action could be taken by the Government on the complaints made by the persons, who after having participated in the same selection process, were declared unsuccessful. (b) Inquiry report submitted by Inquiry Officer namely Jogender Singh the then Joint Director was not final, rather he was directed to conduct preliminary Inquiry to ascertain veracity of allegations made in complaint. Since Inquiry was not final, no action could be taken on the same by the Government. (c) Since it had come in the Inquiry that some of the candidates were relatives of the members of the Selection Committees and they were wrongly passed, entire selection process, whereby 248 candidates were declared successful, could not be cancelled, rather candidates, who were found to be relatives of members of the Selection Committees, could be weeded out. (c) Since it had come in the Inquiry that some of the candidates were relatives of the members of the Selection Committees and they were wrongly passed, entire selection process, whereby 248 candidates were declared successful, could not be cancelled, rather candidates, who were found to be relatives of members of the Selection Committees, could be weeded out. (d) Before taking decision to cancel selection process, successful candidates were not afforded an opportunity to put forth their stand. 11. Mr. M.L. Sharma, learned senior counsel duly assisted by Mr. Aman Parth Sharma, Advocate, appearing for the petitioners in all the petitions, vehemently argued that memo dated 4.2.2019 and letter dated 5.2.2019 issued by respondents are not sustainable in the eye of law as such, same deserve to be quashed. Mr. Sharma, learned senior counsel argued that though Inquiry being preliminary in nature, could not be otherwise made basis to arrive at the final decision of cancellation but even if Inquiry report is perused in its entirety, it reveals that some of the candidates were found to be relatives of the members of the Selection Committees and in that situation, Department instead of canceling the entire selection process, ought to have weeded out the tainted candidates, who were relatives of the members of the Selection Committees. While making this court peruse Annexure R-4, Inquiry report, Mr. Sharma, learned senior counsel contended that since uniform decision was taken by all Zonal Selection Committees to get the written examination conducted on OMR sheets, without there being any serial numbers, such omission, if any, could not be made a basis to cancel the selection process, especially when candidate appearing in such process were not at fault and they could not be punished for omission, if any, on the part of the department. He further argued that the very action of the respondents in entertaining the complaints that too on behalf of unsuccessful candidates, is illegal and as such, consequence if any of the same, is of no relevance. He argued that it is well settled by now that the unsuccessful candidates have no right to challenge the procedure adopted by the Selection Committees, while conducting written examination or interview. 12. Mr. He argued that it is well settled by now that the unsuccessful candidates have no right to challenge the procedure adopted by the Selection Committees, while conducting written examination or interview. 12. Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, learned Additional Advocate General, while refuting the aforesaid submissions made by learned senior counsel for the petitioners and supporting the impugned acts of the respondents, strenuously argued that once factum with regard to illegalities and irregularities committed by the Selection Committees had come to the knowledge of the Government, it could not shut its eyes and rightly decided to cancel the entire process. While making this court peruse complaints lodged by some of the candidates, learned Additional Advocate General contended that serious allegations with regard to favouritism and nepotism and procedural illegalities were made against the members of the Selection Committees, which otherwise during Inquiry were found to be correct and as such, respondents had no option but to cancel the entire selection process. While making this court peruse Inquiry report, Annexure R-4 given by Inquiry Officer named above, qua all the centres i.e. Shimla, Mandi, Udaipur, Kangra and Kullu, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that in all the selection processes, members of the Selection Committees helped their relatives and wards in the examination and apart from this, no procedure was followed, especially with regard to OMR sheets, which were printed/distributed without any serial numbers. He further submitted that as per Inquiry report, marking and evaluation was not as per procedure and some wrong answers were ticked right and vice versa, as a consequence of which entire merit was subverted. Mr. Bhatnagar, submitted that none of the members of the Selection Committees before becoming member, gave certificates that none of their relative is participating in the examination rather, they in a planned manner connived with each other and facilitated selection of their relatives, as a consequence of which merit was ignored and deserving candidates were not able to find place in the merit list. Lastly, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that after cancellation of selection process, fresh process was conducted and therein some of petitioners and other successful candidates stand selected as such, otherwise also present petition is not maintainable. 13. Mr. Rajesh Kumar and Mr. Adarsh K. Vashista, Advocates, while inviting attention of this court to CMPs No. 2471 of 2021 and CMP No. 13093 of 2020. 13. Mr. Rajesh Kumar and Mr. Adarsh K. Vashista, Advocates, while inviting attention of this court to CMPs No. 2471 of 2021 and CMP No. 13093 of 2020. made on behalf of the complainants, who were aggrieved by wrong procedure followed in selection process, submitted that applicants may be arrayed as party in the instant proceedings. In support thereof, both the learned counsel made submissions as were made by learned Additional Advocate General. Though, having taken note of law of the land that unsuccessful candidates are estopped from challenging selection process, this court sees no occasion to accede to the request of the applicants, however, since learned counsel for the applicants adopt the stand and reply filed by the State, no prejudice would be caused to either of parties, if the applicants are permitted to intervene. Aforesaid applications are accordingly disposed of. 14. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through record. 15. Having heard submissions made by learned senior counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Advocate General representing the respondent-State, vis-à-vis reasoning assigned in orders dated 4.2.2019 and 5.2.2019, impugned herein, this court finds no merit in the present petitions. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners, while placing reliance upon judgments passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2015) 11 SCC 493 , titled Pradeep Kumar Rai v. Dinesh Kumar Pandey and (2017)9 SCC 478 titled Dr. Sarojakumari v. R. Helen Thilakom vehemently argued that a candidate after participating in the selection process is estopped from challenging the said selection in the event of being unsuccessful candidates. 16. Though, having perused aforesaid judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court this court has no quarrel with the exposition of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court that an unsuccessful candidate cannot lay challenge to the selection process, after his being declared unsuccessful but, by now it is also well settled that a candidate after having been declared unsuccessful, can lay challenge to selection process, if the same is conducted in violation of statutory rules/Recruitment and Promotion Rules. 17. 17. Otherwise also, judgments relied upon by learned senior counsel for the petitioners have no application in the case at hand, because, here unsuccessful candidates never approached this court in the instant proceedings, rather, they made complaints to the Hon’ble Prime Minister, Hon'ble Chief Minister and Hon'ble Chief Justice of the State, alleging illegalities, irregularities, favouritism and nepotism in the selection process and as such, on the direction of the Executive, department deemed it necessary to constitute Inquiry. Inquiry officer after associating all the stakeholders, including complainants, members of the Selection Committees and perusing entire selection record, arrived at a conclusion that the selection process was not conducted as per Rules and the same was not transparent and fair. On the basis of Inquiry report, Government deemed it fit to cancel the entire selection process and accordingly issued memoranda dated 4.2.2019 and letter dated 5.2.2019, thereby canceling the entire process, which have been impugned herein. 18. No doubt, in the case at hand, unsuccessful candidates made complaints but once department after having perused contents of complaints, deemed it necessary to constitute Inquiry and in Inquiry allegations were found to be correct, decisions dated 4.2.2019 and 5.2.2019 taken by the Government canceling entire selection process cannot be quashed on the ground that the Inquiry was initiated at the behest of unsuccessful candidates. 19. There is yet another aspect of the matter that none of the petitioners, who was selected, even bothered to lay challenge to the action of the Government constituting Inquiry rather, they kept on sleeping till the time, Government while taking action on Inquiry report, decided to cancel the entire selection process. By the time, petitioners approached this court, much water had flown under the bridge. 20. Had the petitioners approached this court against the action of constituting Inquiry pursuant to complaint filed by unsuccessful candidates, things would have been different but definitely by applying judgments as taken note herein above, decision of the Government to cancel the selection process cannot be said to be wrong on the ground that the same was initiated on the complaints made by unsuccessful candidates. 21. 21. Most importantly, some of the petitioners before approaching this court had filed an Original Application No. 517 of 2019 before erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, challenging orders dated 4.2.2019 and 5.2.2019, whereby selection process was cancelled, but such application was disposed of with a direction to the applicants to file representation to the competent authority. Competent authority after having heard all the stake holders, especially the applicants in the Original Application, found findings returned by Inquiry officer to be correct and accordingly upheld the cancellation orders dated 4.2.2019 and 5.2.2019, vide order dated 11.9.2019 ( Annexure R-1), passed by Director Technical Education. Aforesaid order dated 11.9.2019, was passed after approximately one year of submission of Inquiry Report but even then, same was not challenged initially in the instant proceedings, as has been taken note herein above, rather, after objection being raised by the respondent with regard to filing of two petitions by some of the petitioners, figuring at Sr. Nos. 48, 49 and 20, petitioners herein made an application seeking permission to withdraw the petition on behalf of the persons, who had gone to erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal prior to filing of present petitions. It is a matter of fact that after more than one year of passing of the order dated 11.9.2019, whereby representation having been filed by the some of the petitioners came to be rejected, some of the candidates filed separate writ petition i.e. CWP No. 6877 of 2021, laying therein challenge to said order dated 11.9.2019, but if the grounds raised therein are perused, they are verbatim same as have been taken in the instant petition. 22. Another submission made on behalf of the petitioners that in view of Inquiry report, there was no occasion for the Government to cancel the entire selection process, rather, the tainted candidates named therein could be weeded out, also deserves outright rejection being devoid of merit. No doubt, in the Inquiry Report, there is specific mention of few roll numbers in the selection of two zones Shimla and Mandi, that, they were related to the members of the Selection Committees but if report is read in its entirety, it has been categorically observed therein that no procedure was followed and there was no uniformity in the selection process. Neither entire selection process was videographed nor ‘no relation’ certificate was procured by Chairmen of Selection Committees from the members of the Selection Committees, that they are not related to any of candidates appearing for the examination. Most importantly, all the OMR sheets provided to candidates were without serial number. Astonishingly all the sheets were photocopied and thereafter circulated amongst candidates without serial number and as such, Inquiry Officer found truth in the allegations of complainants that there may be possibility of changing answer sheets of some of the candidates, but since no record was available with regard to serial numbers, Inquiry Officer was handicapped in returning findings qua the same, but he has categorically stated in the report that many procedural irregularities were committed at the time of selection process. Interestingly, some of the members of the Selection Committees, while admitting factum with regard to their relation with candidates having participated in the selection process, very conveniently set up a case that they had brought this fact to the notice of Chairmen and while their candidates were being interviewed, they were excused and were not made part of selection process, however, such plea being totally absurd and untenable was rightly rejected by Inquiry Officer. 23. Mere fact that the OMR sheets were without any serial number and the photocopies of the same were circulated amongst the candidates, raises doubt with regard to transparency and fairness of the procedure adopted by Selection Committees for selection of candidates. Besides above, it stands duly established that some of the selected candidates were relatives of members of the Selection Committees and as such, possibility cannot be ruled out that such members helped them or tried to help them, in one way or other. Apart from this Inquiry Report reveals that evaluation was not proper, right answers were ticked wrong and vice versa. 24. Mr. Sharma, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, while inviting attention to a judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in case Union of India v. Rajesh P.U. Puthuvalnikathu (2003) 7 SCC 285 , vehemently argued that only doubtful candidates were required to be weeded out and other candidates selected on their own merit could not be ousted. 24. Mr. Sharma, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, while inviting attention to a judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in case Union of India v. Rajesh P.U. Puthuvalnikathu (2003) 7 SCC 285 , vehemently argued that only doubtful candidates were required to be weeded out and other candidates selected on their own merit could not be ousted. Having perused aforesaid judgment, this court though finds merit in the submission of learned senior counsel for the petitioners, that where it is found during Inquiry that some of candidates were helped or selected by wrong means, their selection can be quashed and remaining candidates who were part of same selection process but selected on their merit can be declared successful. However, in the case at hand, entire selection process had become doubtful on account of findings of Inquiry Officer wherein he has specifically observed that no procedure was followed while conducting the selection process. 25. Leaving everything aside, one example with regard to OMR sheet, without any serial number which were circulated to the candidate after being photocopied from original without serial number, is a glaring example of procedural illegalities and lack of professionalism. Apart from above, it stands established on record that many of the candidates participating in the selection process were relatives of members of the Selection Committees which fact they duly acknowledged during Inquiry. Inquiry Report reveals that no separate attendance register was available suggestive of fact that such candidate participated in selection process, which omission vitiated entire selection process, especially in view of allegations of some of candidates that some of the persons, who had not participated in the process, were declared successful. (Annexure R-5 and R-7) 26. Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India v. Rajesh P.U. Puthuvalnikathu (supra) has held that despite the firm and positive information that except 31 of such selected candidates, no infirmity could be found with reference to others, is nothing but total disregard of relevancies and allowing to be carried away by irrelevancies, giving a complete go bye to contextual considerations throwing to winds the principle of proportionality in going farther than what was strictly and reasonably required to meet the situation. Hon'ble Apex Court in that case held the decision of canceling the entire selections, to be wholly unwarranted and unnecessary. Hon'ble Apex Court held in the judgment supra, as under: “6. Hon'ble Apex Court in that case held the decision of canceling the entire selections, to be wholly unwarranted and unnecessary. Hon'ble Apex Court held in the judgment supra, as under: “6. On a careful consideration of the contentions on either side in the light of the materials brought on record, including the relevant portions of the Report said to have been submitted by the Special Committee constituted for the purpose of inquiring into the irregularities, if any, in the selection of candidates, filed on our directions – which Report itself seems to have been also produced for the perusal of the High Court, there appears to be no scope for any legitimate grievance against the decision rendered by the High Court. There seems to be no serious grievance of any malpractices as such in the process of written examination – either by the candidates or by those who actually conducted them. If the Board itself decided to dictate the questions in loud speaker in English and Hindi and none of the participants had any grievance in understanding them or answering them, there is no justification to surmise at a later stage that the time lapse in dictating them in different languages left any room or scope for the candidates to discuss among them the possible answers. The posting of Invigilators for every ten candidates would belie any such assumptions. Even that apart, the Special Committee constituted does not appear to have condemned that part of the selection process relating to conduct of written examination itself, except noticing only certain infirmities only in the matter of valuation of answer sheets with reference to correct answers and allotment of marks to answers of some of the questions. In addition thereto, it appears the Special Committee has extensively scrutinized and reviewed situation by reevaluating the answer sheets of all the 134 successful as well as the 184 unsuccessful candidates and ultimately found that except 31 candidates found to have been declared successful though they were not really entitled to be so declared successful and selected for appointment. There was no infirmity whatsoever in the selection of the other successful candidates than the 31 identified by the Special Committee. There was no infirmity whatsoever in the selection of the other successful candidates than the 31 identified by the Special Committee. In the light of the above and in the absence of any specific or categorical finding supported by any concrete and relevant material that widespread infirmities of all pervasive nature, which could be really said to have undermined the very process itself in its entirety or as a whole and it was impossible to weed out the beneficiaries of one or other of irregularities, or illegalities, if any, there was hardly any justification in law to deny appointment to the other selected candidates whose selections were not found to be, in any manner, vitiated for any one or other reasons. Applying an unilaterally rigid and arbitrary standard to cancel the entirety of the selections despite the firm and positive information that except 31 of such selected candidates, no infirmity could be found with reference to others, is nothing but total disregard of relevancies and allowing to be carried away by irrelevancies, giving a complete go bye to contextual considerations throwing to winds the principle of proportionality in going farther than what was strictly and reasonably required to meet the situation. In short, the Competent Authority completely misdirected itself in taking such an extreme and unreasonable decision of canceling the entire selections, wholly unwarranted and unnecessary even on the factual situation found too, and totally in excess of the nature and gravity of what was at stake, thereby virtually rendering such decision to be irrational.” 27. Aforesaid judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court if read in its entirety, clearly suggests that the facts were altogether different and same may not have application to the facts of present case. In that case, Board itself decided to dictate the questions in loud speaker in English and Hindi and none of the participants had any grievance in understanding them or answering them. Hon'ble Apex Court held in that case that there is no justification to surmise at a later stage that the time lapsed in dictating them in different languages left any room or scope for the candidates to discuss among them the possible answers. Hon'ble Apex Court held in that case that there is no justification to surmise at a later stage that the time lapsed in dictating them in different languages left any room or scope for the candidates to discuss among them the possible answers. Especially, in the said case Special Committee constituted does not appear to have condemned that part of the selection process relating to conduct of written examination itself, except noticing only certain infirmities only in the matter of valuation of answer sheets with reference to correct answers and allotment of marks to answers of some of the questions. In addition thereto, it appears that the Special Committee extensively scrutinized and reviewed situation by re-evaluating the answer sheets of all the 134 successful as well as the 184 unsuccessful candidates and ultimately found that 31 candidates found to have been declared successful, were not really entitled to be so declared successful and selected for appointment. There was no infirmity whatsoever in the selection of the other successful candidates than the 31 identified by the Special Committee. 28. However, in the case at hand, as has been discussed in detail, inquiry officer found entire selection process to be doubtful. Apart from procedural irregularities with regard to distribution of OMR sheets, neither there were serial numbers on OMR sheets nor attendance register was kept. Most importantly, ‘certificates of no relationship’ were not obtained from the members of the Selection Committees and some of the selected candidates were found to be the relatives of members of the Selection Committees. 29. Since in the case at hand, entire selection process had become doubtful on account of procedural illegalities, as reported by Inquiry Officer, there was no occasion left for the Department to weed out only those candidates, who were allegedly relatives of members of the Selection Committees rather, to ensure fair and transparent selection department rightly decided to cancel the process and initiated fresh process, wherein petitioners and other eligible candidates participated. 30. Third submission of learned senior counsel for the petitioners, that no action could be taken on the basis of preliminary Inquiry, is also without any merit, and as such, is rejected. 30. Third submission of learned senior counsel for the petitioners, that no action could be taken on the basis of preliminary Inquiry, is also without any merit, and as such, is rejected. At the cost of repetition, it may be noticed that immediately after receipt of complaints, Department in its wisdom decided to constitute Inquiry and the Inquiry Officer after having associated all the stake-holders including complainants, members of the Selection Committees submitted his Inquiry report, on which subsequently Government decided to cancel the entire selection process. 31. Mr. Sharma, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, while inviting attention of this court to communication dated 24.4.2019, issued by Director Technical Education to Sunil Kumar, Principal Government Industrial Training Centre, vehemently argued that Shri Jogender Singh the then Joint Director was directed to conduct a preliminary Inquiry and as such, no decision to cancel the process could be taken on the basis of a preliminary Inquiry. Though having perused the aforesaid communication, this court finds that Director Technical Education, while sending communication to the Principal concerned, mentioned that in preliminary Inquiry conducted by Joint Director certain discrepancies/ shortcomings were pointed out but apart from above communication, there is no other document to show that said Inquiry Officer was directed to conduct a preliminary Inquiry. Even document appointing Jogender Singh Joint Director as an Inquiry Officer at initial stage, nowhere suggests that he was asked to conduct a preliminary Inquiry. Inquiry Report submitted by aforesaid Inquiry Officer, if perused in its entirety, nowhere suggests that he conducted a preliminary Inquiry rather, before submitting report, he enquired into all aspects of the matter especially with regard to various allegations leveled in the complaint. Even if it is presumed that report submitted by Inquiry Officer was preliminary one, it would not make any difference, so far as decision of the Government to cancel the selection process is concerned, especially when Inquiry Officer in his report (Annexure R-4 annexed with compliance affidavit dated 17.3.2021 filed by Director Technical Education pursuant to order dated 3.3.2021 P.336 of paper book) categorically concluded as herein under : conclusion qua selection process in Industrial Training Institute Sundernagar: Concluding Observations and Recommendations: 1. Evaluators have not evaluated the OMR sheets properly and as per instructions on the OMR sheets to the candidates and evaluators. Evaluators have not evaluated the OMR sheets properly and as per instructions on the OMR sheets to the candidates and evaluators. OMR sheets evaluated by the evaluators have not been cross checked by the Selection Committee or Trade Experts while finalizing the results in the concerned trade. The merit list prepared and finalized is not correct. 2. NO RELATION CERTIFICATE has not been taken from the members, trade experts evaluators, invigilators and other associated staff before the commencement of Selection Process. Even the Chairman and Member Secretary has not recorded/given this certificate which is essentially required for smooth and impartial conduct of examination. Member and other staff associated with the Selection Process whose relatives appeared in Written Test and has been recommended for selection were allowed to continue their assigned duties by the Chairman Selection Committee/Member Secretary without the approval of competent authority whereas they should have been disassociated for the remaining selection process. 3. Photostat copies of OMR sheets have been used in the written test without serial nos. In the absence of serial no. on OMR sheets distributed to the candidates it can not be ascertained from the record which OMR sheet was given to a candidate. Hence, there is technical flaw in the procedure followed during conduct of written test. 4. In view of above, the entire selection process is not fullproof, hence may be annulled.” Qua Industrial Training Institute Shahpur Concluding Observations and Recommendations: A. The issue raised in the complaint no.1 against Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Lakhanpal, Principal, Govt. ITI, Shahpur are vague and not specific in nature. The complaint appears anonymous. Hence, specifle comments can not be offered. B. On the basis of discussion and facts recorded above, the following observations recommendations are made on the issues raised under complaint no.2 1. No separate Answer Sheets or OMR sheets were provided to the candidates. Question paper given to the candidates during test has been used as Answer Sheet itself and there is no printed serial no. on Question Paper. Hence, there is technical flaw in the procedure followed during conduct of written test. 2. No separate attendance records have been prepared and maintained to ascertain how many candidates turned up for written test/interview during the conduct written tests/interviews. 3. NO RELATION CERTIFICATE has not been taken from the members, invigilators and other associated staff before the commencement of Selection Process. 2. No separate attendance records have been prepared and maintained to ascertain how many candidates turned up for written test/interview during the conduct written tests/interviews. 3. NO RELATION CERTIFICATE has not been taken from the members, invigilators and other associated staff before the commencement of Selection Process. Even the Chairman and Member Secretary has not recorded/given this certificate which is essentially required for smooth and impartial conduct of examination. 4. Keeping in view of these observations the entire selection process may be annulled.” Qua Industrial Training Institute Shimla Concluding Observations and Recommendations: 1. On random checking of the answer sheets of the candidates whose roll nos. figure in the complaint it was found that answer sheets of Roll. Nos. 04 & 09 was not checked correctly which casts aspersions on the entire selection process. 2. As narrated hereinbefore, close relatives of two of the officials associated with the selection process have been recommended for selection committee where as per the well settled norms these two officials ought to have disassociated from the selection process. This also raises doubts about the selection process. It appears that this lapse occurred since NO RELATION CERTIFICATE was not taken from the members of Selection Committee. 3. Photostat copies of OMR sheets have been used in the written test without serial nos. In the absence of serial no. on OMR sheets distributed to the candidates it cannot be ascertained from the record which OMR sheet was given to a candidate. Hence, there is technical flaw in the procedure followed during conduct of written test. 4. In view of above, the entire selection process is not fullproof, hence may be annulled.” Qua Industrial Training Institute Udaipur: “In view of the above discussion and facts following observations are made: 1. No separate Answer Sheets or OMR sheets were provided to the candidates. Question paper given to the candidates during test has been used as Answer Sheet itself and there is no printed serial no. on Question Paper. Hence, there is technical flaw in the procedure followed during conduct of written test. 2. No separate attendance records have been prepared and maintained to ascertain how many candidates tumed up for written test/interview on 18.09.2018. 3. Local candidates from Lahual and Spiti could not participate in the written test/interview on 18.09.2018 due to the reason stated in above said representations. 4. 2. No separate attendance records have been prepared and maintained to ascertain how many candidates tumed up for written test/interview on 18.09.2018. 3. Local candidates from Lahual and Spiti could not participate in the written test/interview on 18.09.2018 due to the reason stated in above said representations. 4. Keeping in view of these observations the entire selection process may be annulled. 32. After having noticed aforesaid findings given by Inquiry Officer, probably respondent Department was left with no option but to cancel the entire selection process which had become doubtful and was actually not conducted in a transparent and fair manner. 33. Since these complaints of irregularities were not qua one zone, rather qua all the zones, covering entire State, no illegality can be said to have been committed by respondents, while ordering cancellation of entire selection process, and as such, same cannot be interfered with in the instant proceedings. 34. Leaving everything aside, after canceling the selection process initiated in 2018, the respondent Department had initiated and concluded fresh selection process, wherein alongwith fresh candidates, some of the petitioners have been also declared selected. 35. In view of the detailed discussion made supra and law taken note of, this court finds no merit in the present petitions, which are accordingly dismissed alongwith all pending applications.