JUDGMENT : Heard the parties. 2. Petitioners have approached this Court with a common prayer for quashing the memo No. 1592 dated 06.04.2021, whereby after completion of the selection process in pursuance of the Advt. No. 955 (c) dated 08.03.2019, same has been cancelled by the respondent-RIMS and further direction has been issued to take steps for publication of fresh Advertisement. Petitioners have further prayed for a direction upon the respondents to issue appointment letters in favour of the petitioners in terms of final select list dated 20.10.2020. 3. As per the factual matrix, in the year 2019 i.e. on 08.03.2019, an advertisement bearing Advt. No. 955 (a) and 955 (b) was published for appointment to Grade-III Technical and Non-Technical Posts and further, Advt. No. 955 (c) was published for appointment to Grade-IV post. The present petitioners, having the requisite qualification, had applied for Grade-IV post pursuant to Advt. No. 955 (c). The respondent-RIMS, after verifying the documents and testimonials submitted by the petitioners along with others, have published the select list vide memo No. 4047 dated 20.10.2020, in which the names of the present petitioners also find place. Inspite of publication of final select list, when the appointment letters were not issued, the petitioners filed representation dated 05.01.2021 but no heed was paid on the same. It is petitioners’ further case that while they were waiting for their appointment letters, in the month of June, 2021, they came to know that an order has been issued by respondent No. 2 vide memo No. 1592 dated 06.04.2021, by which the respondents have cancelled the recruitment process pursuant to Advt. No. 955 (c) dated 08.03.2019 for appointment to Grade-IV post and further direction has been issued for publication of fresh Advertisement. The said order of cancellation was issued taking into account letter dated 05.02.2021 issued by the Department of Personnel, Govt. of Jharkhand in terms of order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 1387 of 2017 (Soni Kumari & Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.) though the matter was quite different from that of the present petitioners. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have knocked the door of this Court. 4. Mr. of Jharkhand in terms of order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 1387 of 2017 (Soni Kumari & Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.) though the matter was quite different from that of the present petitioners. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have knocked the door of this Court. 4. Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners assiduously argues that impugned order is not tenable in the eyes of law inasmuch as while issuing the said order, the respondent-authorities have failed to appreciate that in the case of Soni Kumari (supra), the matter was quite different. Learned counsel further argues that in case of Soni Kumari, 100% reservation was given for appointment of teachers of the same district in which appointment was to be done and hence, no outsider could be appointed pursuant to the said advertisement, which was quashed by this Court in Soni Kumari’s case. However, in the instant case, no such averment was made by the respondent-RIMS. It is not a case of the respondents that there were any irregularities, malpractice or other things which forced the respondent authorities to cancel the entire selection process. Learned counsel lastly argues that the respondents have no right to cancel the advertisement without showing any valid reason for cancellation of the said advertisement. 5. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners places heavy reliance on the following judgments : (i) Union of India v. Rajesh P.U., [ (2003) 7 SCC 285 ]; & (ii) Sachin Kumar v. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board, [ (2021) 4 SCC 631 ]. 6. On 14.02.2022, this Court, after hearing the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, directed the respondent-RIMS as well as State to file specific reply meeting the following queries of the Court : (i) Whether enquiry report relates to Advertisement No. 955A and B only and not 955C? (ii) If the enquiry pertains to Advertisement No. 955A and B only, then why process for appointment/ selection has been cancelled for Advertisement No. 955C also? (iii) Whether cancellation has any nexus with the case of Soni Kumari and others which is still pending before the Hon’ble Apex Court? (ii) If the enquiry pertains to Advertisement No. 955A and B only, then why process for appointment/ selection has been cancelled for Advertisement No. 955C also? (iii) Whether cancellation has any nexus with the case of Soni Kumari and others which is still pending before the Hon’ble Apex Court? (iv) If it has no nexus with the case of Soni Kumari and others i.e. the matter relating to Schedule and non-schedule area and if the enquiry report does not relate to Advertisement No. 955C, whether the order of cancellation is tenable in the eyes of law and why not the same be quashed and set aside? 7. The respondents have filed counter affidavit and also supplementary counter-affidavits replying the query made by this Court vide Order dated 14.02.2022. 8. Dr. A.K. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-RIMS submits that after publication of select list pursuant to Advt. No. 955 (c), the respondent-State received complaints regarding several irregularities being committed by the respondent-RIMS while preparing the select list. The genuineness of these complaints were enquired by a Committee constituted by the State Government vide letter dated 05.02.2021, whereby all such appointments which had not already been made were directed to be put on hold. On receipt of such order from the State government, the respondent-RIMS vide letter dated 06.04.2021 cancelled entire selection process with regard to appointment of Class-III and Class-IV posts in RIMS. Learned counsel further argues that since the entire selection process and selection made there under have already been cancelled, now the petitioner cannot claim to be appointed against those posts. Learned counsel further argues that it is a settled proposition of law that just because the name of a person figures in the select list, he does not have a vested right to be appointed. It is open for the State to cancel the entire selection process and the selection made there under for a valid reason. This is exactly what has been done in the instant case. 9. Mr. Deepak Kumar Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State submits that the RIMS has cancelled the Advt. No. 955 (c) dated 08.03.2019, in terms of order contained in memo dated 05.02.2021, issued by the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Jharkhand and not by the order of the Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi. No. 955 (c) dated 08.03.2019, in terms of order contained in memo dated 05.02.2021, issued by the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Jharkhand and not by the order of the Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi. Learned counsel further argues that on the basis of complaints received by the respondent-State, an enquiry committee was constituted under the Chairmanship of the Special Secretary vide memo dated 19.02.2020 for enquiring into the irregularities committed by RIMS, Ranchi at its level in the appointments made under Advt. Nos. 955 (a) and 955 (b) and not Advt. No. 955 (c) and on the basis of report submitted by the Committee, the Director RIMS was directed to take necessary steps with regard to selection process being carried-out pursuant to Advt. Nos. 955 (a) and 955 (b). Learned counsel further argues that no direction was given by the respondent-State with regard to selection process being carried out pursuant to Advt. No. 955 (c). 10. Be that as it may, having heard the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the documents brought on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that case of the petitioners need consideration for the following facts and reasons : (I) Admittedly, petitioners were selected in pursuant to Advt. No. 955 (c) and their names find place in the select list vide memo No. 4047 dated 20.10.2020. (II) However, the select list was cancelled by the respondents vide memo No. 1592 dated 06.04.2021, in view of letter dated 05.02.2021, issued by the Department of Personnel, Govt. of Jharkhand, in terms of order passed by this Court in W.P.(S). No. 1387 of 2017 (Soni Kumari & Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.). The impugned order of cancellation issued in view of letter dated 05.02.2021 is not tenable in the eyes of law as the reasons assigned is totally against the spirit of the order passed by this Court in case of Soni Kumari. In case of Soni Kumari, 100% reservation was given for appointment of teachers of the same district in which appointment was to be done, which was quashed and set aside by this Court. The same theory was not at all applicable in the instant case and as such, it can comfortably be inferred that cancellation of the Advt. In case of Soni Kumari, 100% reservation was given for appointment of teachers of the same district in which appointment was to be done, which was quashed and set aside by this Court. The same theory was not at all applicable in the instant case and as such, it can comfortably be inferred that cancellation of the Advt. No. 955 (c), in view of letter dated 05.02.2021, issued by the Department of Personnel is totally misconceived, mechanical and without application of judicial mind. (III) The other ground for cancellation of the said advertisement was the enquiry report of the State Govt. in which it was held that the entire selection process was full of complaints and several irregularities were committed by respondent-RIMS while preparing the select list. The genuineness of the complaints were also enquired by the Committee constituted by the State Govt. vide letter dated 05.02.2021. The averments to the effect made in the counter-affidavit and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent-RIMS is totally baseless and cannot be accepted by this Court on the ground that page-25 and 26 of the supplementary counter-affidavit dated 09.03.2022, filed by the respondent-RIMS is contrary to the statements made in para-7 of the supplementary counter-affidavit filed by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 on 28.03.2022. Para-7 of the supplementary counter-affidavit dated 28.03.2022, reads as under : “………………….. on the basis of the complaints received by the answering respondent, an enquiry committee was constituted under the chairmanship of the Special Secretary vide memo no. 64(11) dated 19.02.2020 for inquiring into the irregularities committed by RIMS, Ranchi at its level in the appointments made under Advertisement Nos. 955A and 955B and not to 955C.” From the said affidavit filed by the respondent-State, it is crystal clear that no any enquiry was ever held or any Committee was constituted for enquiring the irregularities committed, if any, related to the Advt. No. 955(c), rather, it was for the Advt. Nos. 955(a) and 955(b). When, there was no enquiry for the Advt. No. 955(c), neither the report was furnished in this regard, this Court fails to understand as to on what basis, the Advt. No. 955(c) was cancelled in absence of any adverse report. 11. No. 955(c), rather, it was for the Advt. Nos. 955(a) and 955(b). When, there was no enquiry for the Advt. No. 955(c), neither the report was furnished in this regard, this Court fails to understand as to on what basis, the Advt. No. 955(c) was cancelled in absence of any adverse report. 11. The Court is conscious of the fact that merely because the name finds place in the select list, there was no right to the candidates to ask for an appointment. This issue has already been decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, reported in (1991) 3 SCC 47 , the relevant paragraph of which reads as under : “7. It is not correct to say that if a number of vacancies are notified for appointment and adequate number of candidates are found fit, the successful candidates acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed which cannot be legitimately denied. Ordinarily the notification merely amounts to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and on their selection they do not acquire any right to the post. Unless the relevant recruitment rules so indicate, the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies. However, it does not mean that the State has the licence of acting in an arbitrary manner. The decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons. And if the vacancies or any of them are filled up, the State is bound to respect the comparative merit of the candidates, as reflected at the recruitment test, and no discrimination can be permitted. This correct position has been consistently followed by this Court, and we do not find any discordant note in the decisions in State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha [ (1974) 3 SCC 220 : 1973 SCC (L&S) 488 : (1974) 1 SCR 165 ], Neelima Shangla v. State of Haryana [ (1986) 4 SCC 268 : 1986 SCC (L&S) 759], or Jatinder Kumar v. State of Punjab [ (1985) 1 SCC 122 : 1985 SCC (L&S) 174 : (1985) 1 SCR 899 ].” 12. Similar issue fell for consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Vikas Pratap Singh & Ors. Vs. Similar issue fell for consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Vikas Pratap Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors., reported in (2013) 14 SCC 494 , wherein the Hon’ble Court has held as under : “22. The pristine maxim of fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant (fraud and justice never dwell together) has never lost its temper over the centuries and it continues to dwell in spirit and body of service law jurisprudence. It is settled law that no legal right in respect of appointment to a said post vests in a candidate who has obtained the employment by fraud, mischief, misrepresentation or mala fide. (See Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi [ (1990) 3 SCC 655 : 1990 SCC (L&S) 520 : (1990) 14 ATC 766], S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath [ (1994) 1 SCC 1 ] and Union of India v. M. Bhaskaran [1995 Supp (4) SCC 100 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 162 : (1996) 32 ATC 94].) It is also settled law that a person appointed erroneously on a post must not reap the benefits of wrongful appointment jeopardising the interests of the meritorious and worthy candidates. However, in cases where a wrongful or irregular appointment is made without any mistake on the part of the appointee and upon discovery of such error or irregularity the appointee is terminated, this Court has taken a sympathetic view in the light of various factors including bona fide of the candidate in such appointment and length of service of the candidate after such appointment (see Vinodan T. v. University of Calicut [ (2002) 4 SCC 726 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 606] ; State of U.P. v. Neeraj Awasthi [ (2006) 1 SCC 667 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 190]).” 13. In the instant case, in absence of any enquiry and any report, mechanically it was concluded that Advt. No. 955 (c) was also full of irregularities and as such, it was cancelled. There is no iota of evidence brought on record to show that any irregularities was committed in the recruitment process pursuant to Advt. No. 955 (c). The results of the said Advertisement have already been published. It is always open for the respondents to consider the cases of successful candidates for issuance of appointment letters after following the procedure of law, as per the terms and conditions of the advertisement. No. 955 (c). The results of the said Advertisement have already been published. It is always open for the respondents to consider the cases of successful candidates for issuance of appointment letters after following the procedure of law, as per the terms and conditions of the advertisement. Needless to say, if the roster and reservation policy has not been followed, the respondents may undertake appropriate steps and issue appointment letter to the candidates from the select list after following the reservation and roster policy. 14. The entire advertisement in block cannot be cancelled, which has been held in the case of Union of India & Ors. v. Rajesh P.U. & Anr., reported in (2003) 7 SCC 285 , “……………. 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 an 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 the other 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 the other reasons. …………………..” It was further held that the competent authority misdirected itself in taking such an extreme and unreasonable decision by cancellation of the selection of unattained candidates, which was held not be justified. 15. Aforesaid irregularities were never taken into consideration by the authorities of the RIMS and on their own, in mechanical manner, they have cancelled the appointment of the Advt. No. 955 (c), which is not tenable in the eyes of law. 16. As a sequitur of the aforesaid observations, rules, guidelines, legal propositions and judicial pronouncements, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order as contained in memo No. 1592 dated 06.04.2021 is fit to be quashed and set aside and the same is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the cases of the petitioners for their appointments on Grade-IV posts, in view of the terms and conditions of appointment as mentioned in Advt. No. 955 (c) and if there is no other legal impediments, issue offer of appointment in favour of the petitioners. 17. The respondents are directed to consider the cases of the petitioners for their appointments on Grade-IV posts, in view of the terms and conditions of appointment as mentioned in Advt. No. 955 (c) and if there is no other legal impediments, issue offer of appointment in favour of the petitioners. 17. Let the entire exercise be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. 18. Resultantly, the writ petition stands allowed.