ORDER : Shree Chandrashekhar, J. WP(S) No. 234 of 2012 filed by twenty persons and WP(S) No. 203 of 2014 by one person all aspiring for the post of Assistant Sub Inspector of RPF (hereinafter referred to as “ASI ”) raised a common grievance before the writ Court against cancellation of the selection held between 18th January 2011 to 21st January 2011. In the said selection process, the writ petitioners who are respondents before us had qualified for appointment by promotion in the rank of ASI under Rule 72 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as “RPF Rules, 1987”). 2. The writ petitions were allowed vide order dated 3rd November 2017 holding that the decision of the Competent Authority to cancel the entire selection process was arbitrary, illegal and against the extant rules. 3. The Union of India through Ministry of Railways is in appeal through these Letters Patent Appeals against the aforesaid common order dated 3rd November 2017. 4. LPA No. 79 of 2018 and LPA No. 206 of 2018 filed against the common order dated 3rd November 2017 passed in WP(S) No. 234 of 2012 and WP(S) No. 203 of 2014 were directed to be posted together vide order dated 17th June 2020 in LPA No. 206 of 2018. 5. By an order dated 29th June 2018 passed in LPA No. 79 of 2018 the order passed by the writ Court in WP(S) No. 234 of 2012 was stayed by a coordinate Bench of this Court, and vide order dated 5th November 2018 the application for stay filed vide IA No. 3800 of 2018 was allowed. 6. LPA No. 93 of 2018 filed against the common order dated 3rd November 2017 passed in WP(S) No. 1427 of 2014 was dismissed in default on 22nd April 2019 and the said Appeal has yet not been revived. 7. On 16th November 2010, the Deputy Chief Security Commissioner/RPF, Kolkata called upon the eligible constables/Head constables with minimum ten years of service to tender their willingness for promotion to the post of ASI under Rule 72 of RPF Rules, 1987. 7. On 16th November 2010, the Deputy Chief Security Commissioner/RPF, Kolkata called upon the eligible constables/Head constables with minimum ten years of service to tender their willingness for promotion to the post of ASI under Rule 72 of RPF Rules, 1987. The selection process commenced on 17th January 2011 by calling upon the applicants to appear in the Written examination on 18th January 2011, and Outdoor test and viva-voce were held between 19th January 2011 and 20th January 2011 at RPF Zonal Training Institute, South-Eastern Railway, Kharagpur, in which 137 candidates participated. A mandatory condition for selection was imposed to the effect that only the candidates who secured 36 marks, out of 40 marks from the Written test and 20 marks for Outdoor test, shall be declared successful. 8. On 20th January 2011, a notification was issued permitting the candidates who could not participate in the Written test affording them further opportunity to take part in the Main examination which was to be held from 16th February 2011 to 18th February 2011 – but, no candidate was selected. It is stated that 24 candidates who are the respondents were selected after interview by the Departmental Promotion Committee. Thereafter select list was finalized by the Departmental Promotion Committee and the same was sent to Inspector General -cum-Chief Security Commissioner, Kolkata for approval. But the final list was not published and the selected candidates were compelled to make representations to the Competent Authority, which asked them to deposit Rs.1,00,000/- for providing information through RTI. In the meantime, on 8th December 2011, decision of the Competent Authority regarding cancellation of their selection communicated through the Deputy Chief Security Commissioner, RPF, South-Eastern Railway, Kolkata was made known to them. 9. As noticed above, the selected candidates approached the writ Court raising inter alia the following grounds: (i) cancellation of the entire selection process was arbitrary, illegal and mala fide; (ii) amalgamation of old and new vacancies by calling fresh willingness was in violation of the principles of natural justice, extant rules and procedure for selection, and; (iii) decision to cancel the selection of bona fide candidates was unjustified. 10. The Union of India took a stand that on receipt of an anonymous complaint the matter was inquired into by the internal vigilance group of RPF which found several procedural irregularities and lapses. 10. The Union of India took a stand that on receipt of an anonymous complaint the matter was inquired into by the internal vigilance group of RPF which found several procedural irregularities and lapses. The Union of India set up a defence that the decision to cancel the selection process was taken in the interest of administration, as the procedural irregularities and lapses in conducting the examination could not have been rectified subsequently. 11. The writ Court did not agree with the Union of India as no trace of malpractices in conduct of written examination was found and a unilateral decision was taken by the Union of India to cancel the entire selection process, which was held arbitrary, illegal and hit by the principle of proportionality. 12. The writ Court referred to “Union of India & Ors. v. Rajesh P.U. Puthuvalnikathu & Anr.” (2003) 7 SCC 285 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in absence of any concrete or relevant material that widespread infirmities of all pervasive nature which could be really said to have undermined the very selection process itself and it was impossible to weed out the beneficiaries of one or other irregularities, there cannot be any justification for wholesale cancellation of select list. 13. The writ Court further referred to “East Coast Railway & Anr. v. Mahadev Appa Rao & Ors.” (2010) 7 SCC 678 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under : “14. It is evident from the above that while no candidate acquires an indefeasible right to a post merely because he has appeared in the examination or even found a place in the select list, yet the State does not enjoy an unqualified prerogative to refuse an appointment in an arbitrary fashion or to disregard the merit of the candidates as reflected by the merit list prepared at the end of the selection process. The validity of the State's decision not to make an appointment is thus a matter which is not beyond judicial review before a competent writ court. If any such decision is indeed found to be arbitrary, appropriate directions can be issued in the matter. 14. The records would reveal that the complaint was dealt with by the internal vigilance department and a communication in this regard was forwarded to the Deputy Chief Security Commissioner, RPF vide letter dated 14th July 2011. If any such decision is indeed found to be arbitrary, appropriate directions can be issued in the matter. 14. The records would reveal that the complaint was dealt with by the internal vigilance department and a communication in this regard was forwarded to the Deputy Chief Security Commissioner, RPF vide letter dated 14th July 2011. Some of the allegations which were inquired into, such as, (i) cancellation of departmental promotion test which was previously scheduled to be held from 21st December 2009 to 23rd December 2009 and 6th April 2010 to 8th April 2010; (ii) conduct of inquiry by an officer in the rank of inspector which violated the provisions of Rule 248 of RPF Rules, 1987; (iii) Head constable No. 9025 was declared qualified after three unsuccessful attempts, are not at all worth consideration. The report itself mentions that many of the allegations were factually incorrect, unsubstantiated or irrelevant. 15. Mr. Parth Jalan, the learned counsel for the appellants, would draw our attention to the allegations of malpractice, corruption etc. to give undue favour to some favourite candidates. The aforesaid allegations pertain to complaints like: (i) column No.6 of top slip was not filled up by the candidates; (ii) name and designation were not mentioned by the Evaluator, and; (iii) blank pages were not crossed by the candidates and (iv) even though 13 candidates wrote their names in reply to question No.7 three were declared qualified – it is not clear from the records what was the implication of this answer to question No.7. 16. Accordingly to the learned counsel for the appellants more serious allegations appear at serial No.6. The allegations are that (i) a candidate who gave two answers was awarded marks and (ii) a candidate who gave wrong answer as “lack seal” was awarded marks. Similar instances which are culled out at serial no. 6 read as under : “Total 42 candidates (code no. The allegations are that (i) a candidate who gave two answers was awarded marks and (ii) a candidate who gave wrong answer as “lack seal” was awarded marks. Similar instances which are culled out at serial no. 6 read as under : “Total 42 candidates (code no. 02, 06, 11, 18, 23, 27, 28, 32, 33, 38, 39, 40, 41, 44, 47, 50, 58, 60, 62, 66, 68, 69, 73, 75, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 87, 88, 93, 104, 107, 109, 115, 120, 121, 124, 128, 129 & 130) have written as “lac seal” in their reply instead of “wax” seal as mentioned in modal answer provided by chairman of DPA, but one of the evaluator has marked it wrong whereas the other evaluator has given marks (code no. 01, 03, 101, 105, 106, 118, 127, and 130) for the same in the answer sheets evaluated by him though lac & wax seals are same.” 17. Our attention has also been drawn to the other irregularities which are to the following effect : “Beside this 05 candidates (code no. 03, 66, 85, 125 & 130) have written as “DCPT”/”Dry Chemical Powder” in their reply instead of “DCP” as mentioned in modal answer provided by chairman of DPC, but the evaluators has marked reply of 03 candidates (code no. 85,125 & 130) as correct and reply of 02 candidates (code no. 03 & 66) as incorrect.” 18. In our opinion, the aforesaid allegations did not touch upon the integrity of the Written test and were in fact insignificant and irrelevant. 19. In the first place, there is no allegation against the Evaluator of favoritism and extending undue benefit to a group of candidates. The various allegations dealt with by the internal vigilance team are not confined to few candidates who were allegedly awarded marks against wrong answers to make them qualify Written examination. It further appears that the so called wrong answers are tentative complaint/opinion and, as it would appear from the questionnaire, the Invigilator had complete freedom and choice in the matter and by no stretch of imagination the answers selected by the Invigilator can be termed “absolutely wrong”. 20. It further appears that the so called wrong answers are tentative complaint/opinion and, as it would appear from the questionnaire, the Invigilator had complete freedom and choice in the matter and by no stretch of imagination the answers selected by the Invigilator can be termed “absolutely wrong”. 20. The report itself concluded by holding as under : “On scrutiny of the answer sheets, relevant documents & records to - to and on verifying the same on vigilance angle but nowhere any sign of malpractice as well as corruption was noticed except the aforesaid anomalies and procedural lapses.” 21. The writ petitioners who were applicants for promotion to the post of ASI cannot claim that they have an indefeasible right of selection even though they were declared successful. But they certainly do have a right for consideration, a fair consideration for selection to the post of ASI. Merely on a doubt that certain irregularities were committed during the selection process the entire selection cannot be cancelled. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme in “Union of India & Ors. v. Rajesh P.U. Puthuvalnikathu & Anr.” (2003) 7 SCC 285 ” there must be strong compelling reasons to deny promotion to a candidate who was found eligible and successful by the Departmental Promotion Committee. The decision to cancel selection of the respondents for promotion and calling for fresh application was illegal, arbitrary and without any valid reason and, therefore, we would approve the decision of writ Court interfering with the respondents' impugned decisions. 22. In the present proceeding, separate supplementary affidavits have been filed by the Union of India in both the Letters Patent Appeals asserting that the writ petitioners who are before us as respondents have all been granted promotion to the rank of Head constables/ASIs under Rule 70/72 of the RPF Rules, 1987. A tabular chart has been prepared in LPA No. 79 of 2018 to show as to under which Rule the respondent Nos. 1 to 20 have been promoted in the rank of Head constables/ASIs. 23. In LPA No. 206 of 2018, the Union of India has stated in its affidavit dated 4th July 2022 as under : “4. That during the intervening period from the date of the cancellation of the examination i.e., 8th of December 2011 till date, several examinations have been held for departmental promotion of eligible candidates to the post of Assistant Sub-inspector. 5. That during the intervening period from the date of the cancellation of the examination i.e., 8th of December 2011 till date, several examinations have been held for departmental promotion of eligible candidates to the post of Assistant Sub-inspector. 5. That selections were held from 24th of August 2012 to 30th of August 2012 followed by Supplementary test from 11th of September 2012 to 12th of September 2012 in which 16 candidates were given promotion vide order dated 4th of April 2014 as against 41 vacancies. Examinations were also held from between November 2015 to May 2016 for filling up vacancies of 112 posts. In these examinations 88 candidates were promoted. Thereafter examinations were conducted on 28th of October 2021 for 116 posts in which 115 candidates were granted promotion. 6. That on 11th of June 2022, examinations have been conducted for departmental promotion to the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector for filling up 58 number of posts, the results of which are yet to be published. 7. That the current status of the Respondent/Writ Petitioner is as under : Sr. No. Name and Designation Present Status 1. Prem Shankar Choudhary Promotion to the rank of Asst. Sub-Inspector under Rule 70 of RPF Rules 1987. 8. That the Respondent/Writ Petitioner appeared in the Selection Test held from November 2015 to May 2016 and was promoted with effect from 18th of February 2017. 9. That in light of the aforesaid facts, it is most humbly submitted that the Writ Petitioner have already been granted promotion.” 24. In its affidavit dated 4th July 2022 filed in LPA No. 79 of 2018, the Union of India has stated as under : “4. That during the intervening period from the date of the cancellation of the examination i.e. 8th of December 2011 till date, several examinations have been held for departmental promotion of eligible candidates to the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector. 5. That selections were held from 24th of August 2012 to 30th of August 2012 followed by Supplementary test from 11th of September 2012 to 12th of September 2012 in which 16 candidates were given promotion vide order dated 4th of April 2014 as against 41 vacancies. Examinations were also held from between November 2015 to May 2016 for filling up vacancies of 112 posts. In these examinations 88 candidates were promoted. Examinations were also held from between November 2015 to May 2016 for filling up vacancies of 112 posts. In these examinations 88 candidates were promoted. Thereafter examinations were conducted on 28th of October 2021 for 116 posts in which 115 candidates were granted promotion. 6. That on 11th of June 2022, examinations have been conducted for departmental promotion to the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector for filling up 58 number of posts, the results of which are yet to be published. 7. That the current status of the Respondents/Writ Petitioners is as under : Sr. No. Name and Designation Present Status 1. Sanjay Baitha, HC-3315 Promotion to the rank of Asst. Sub-Inspector under Restructuring Scheme 2. Ajit Kumar Mahapatra, Constable-4473 Promoted to the rank of Head Constable under Rule 70 of RPF Rules 1987. 3. Ravi Shankar, HC-5959 Promotion to the rank of Asst. Sub-Inspector under Rule 70 of RPF Rules 1987. 4. Sanjay Kumar Singh, Constable-3329 Promoted to the rank of Head Constable under Rule 70 of RPF Rules 1987 5. Ravi Shankar Singh, HC-185 Promotion to the rank of Asst. Sub-Inspector under Rule 70 of RPF Rules 1987 6. Geetesh Kumar Rai, HC-1089 Promotion to the rank of Asst. Sub-Inspector under Rule 70 of RPF Rules 1987 7. Gajendra Kumar Singh, Constable-3521 Promotion to the rank of Asst. Sub-Inspector under Rule 70 of RPF Rules 1987 8. Gyaneshwar Manjhi, HC-294 Promotion to the rank of Asst. Sub-Inspector under Rule 70 of RPF Rules 1987. 9. Vinoj Kumar Singh, HC-3148 Promotion to the rank of Asst. Sub-Inspector under Rule 70 of RPF Rules 1987 10. Rakesh Kumar Pathak, Constable-3531 Promoted to the rank of Head Constable under Rule 70 of RPF Rules 1987. 11. Sukanta Apat, Constable-4431 Promotion to the rank of Asst. Sub-Inspector under Rule 70 of RPF Rules 1987 12. Omkar Nath Mishra, HC-3098 Promotion to the rank of Asst. Sub-Inspector under Restructuring Scheme 13. P. Rama Rao, HC-5884 Promotion to the rank of Asst. Sub-Inspector under Rule 70 of RPF Rules 1987 14. A.K. Pandey, HC-6353 Promotion to the rank of Asst. Sub-Inspector under Restructuring Scheme 15 M.K. Singh, HC-3202 Promotion to the rank of Asst. Sub-Inspector under Rule 70 of RPF Rules 1987 16. Bhagwan Ram, HC-6112 Promotion to the rank of Asst. Sub-Inspector under Restructuring Scheme 17. Ratneshwar Prasad, Constable-6129 Promoted to the rank of Head Constable under Rule 70 of RPF Rules 1987 18. Sub-Inspector under Restructuring Scheme 15 M.K. Singh, HC-3202 Promotion to the rank of Asst. Sub-Inspector under Rule 70 of RPF Rules 1987 16. Bhagwan Ram, HC-6112 Promotion to the rank of Asst. Sub-Inspector under Restructuring Scheme 17. Ratneshwar Prasad, Constable-6129 Promoted to the rank of Head Constable under Rule 70 of RPF Rules 1987 18. Bundelaa Sahhi, HC-9025 Promotion to the rank of Asst. Sub-Inspector under Rule 70 of RPF Rules 1987 19. Manoranjan Halder, Constable-8699 Promotion to the rank of Asstt. Sub-Inspector under Rule 70 of RPF Rules 1987 20. Sanjay Kumar Muduli, Constable-4481 Promoted to the rank of Head Constable under Rule 70 of RPF Rules 1987 8. That bare perusal of the aforesaid facts would show that 15 Writ Petitioners have already been promoted to the post of Asst. Sub-Inspector. The status of the remaining candidates is as under: a. Writ Petitioner no. 2 namely Ajit Kumar Mahapatra was called for Selection Test in the recently held Examination on 11th of June 2022 however, he submitted his unwillingness to participate in the same. b. Writ petitioner no. 4,17 and 20 namely Sanjay Kumar Singh, Ratneshwar Prasad and Sanjay Kumar Muduli, appeared in the recently held Examination on 11th of June 2022, the result of which are yet to be published. c. Writ Petitioner no. 10 namely Rakesh Kumar Pathak appeared in the selection test held on 28th of October 2021, however, he did not qualify the same. He again appeared in the recently held examination on 11th of June 2022, the results of which are yet to be published. 9. That in the light of the aforesaid facts, it is most humbly submitted that most of the Writ Petitioners have already been granted promotion or are under consideration for promotion to the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector.” 25. In the aforesaid background, Mr. Parth Jalan, the learned counsel for the appellants would submit that now the writ Court's order cannot be implemented and given effect to and while so the present Letters Patent Appeals challenging the common order dated 3rd November 2017 must succeed. 26. In the aforesaid background, Mr. Parth Jalan, the learned counsel for the appellants would submit that now the writ Court's order cannot be implemented and given effect to and while so the present Letters Patent Appeals challenging the common order dated 3rd November 2017 must succeed. 26. The writ Court while exercising the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was cautious of implications which might have followed the order passed by it and, therefore, a caution was sounded to the respondents by recording in the order dated 3rd November, 2017 that any promotion granted shall remain subject to final outcome of the writ petition. This is not in dispute that the subsequent selection processes undertaken by the South-Eastern Railways were not brought to notice of the writ Court and South-Eastern Railways taking benefit of the situation whereunder no embargo was placed by the writ Court on further selection, proceeded in the matter of promotion to the rank of ASI under Rule 70. 27. We further find that there were latches and delay on the part of the Union of India in prosecuting the Letters Patent Appeals filed against the writ Court's order and, in the meantime, examinations were conducted for promotion in the rank of ASI – in 2012, 2015-16 and 2021. 28. LPA No. 206 of 2018 was filed on 23rd April 2018 with several defects. On 2nd July 2018 when the matter was listed before the Joint Registrar (Judicial) no one appeared on behalf of the appellant and in spite of time granted to the appellant by the learned Registrar General vide order dated 1st March 2019 several defects were not removed by the appellant. This Letters Patent Appeal was listed before the Hon'ble DB-II on 20th November 2019 and anguish of the Court as to how the matter was prosecuted by the Union of India is reflected in the said order under which the Court indicated dismissal of the LPA No. 206 of 2018 without further reference to the Bench in the event remaining defects pointed out by the Registry were not removed. It further appears that this Letters Patent Appeal was filed beyond the period of limitation and although the matter was heard by the Court on three occasions, the application for condonation of delay was not pressed by the appellant. It further appears that this Letters Patent Appeal was filed beyond the period of limitation and although the matter was heard by the Court on three occasions, the application for condonation of delay was not pressed by the appellant. It was only on 19th January 2021 when the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act vide IA No. 11046 of 2019 was pressed by the appellant and the delay in preferring the appeal was condoned by the Hon'ble DB-I. It is also important to record that in LPA No. 206 of 2018, on a request made on behalf of the appellant, the Court dispensed with service of notice upon the respondent Nos. 2 to 14. 29. The proceedings in LPA No. 79 of 2018 portray a similar picture how the Union of India through Railways prosecuted the Appeal which was filed even more than two months prior to filing of LPA No. 206 of 2018. 30. The further proceedings in LPA No. 206 of 2018 with LPA No. 79 of 2018 would indicate that even on 28th April 2022 a request for adjournment was made on behalf of the appellant. A glance at the said order would indicate that this Court took serious exception to such a request made on behalf of the Union of India and it was indicated in the said order that cost of Rs.50,000/- would be imposed upon the Union of India, if adjournment is sought for any reason whatsoever. 31. We have recorded the aforesaid proceedings in both the Letters Patent Appeals primarily for the reason that the writ Court in its order dated 22nd August 2012 had indicated that any selection for promotion on the post of ASI /RPF shall remain subject to final result in WP(S) No. 234 of 2012. And, at this stage, directing the Union of India to give effect to the select list prepared pursuant to the Notification dated 16th November 2010 from the date of initial selection would cause cascading effect in the cadre but, at the same time, the select list cannot be ignored in toto. 32. The sequence of events which we have already observed in the preceding paragraphs clearly suggest lack of fairness in action on the part of South-Eastern Railways. 32. The sequence of events which we have already observed in the preceding paragraphs clearly suggest lack of fairness in action on the part of South-Eastern Railways. Today we are in a situation where the relief sought by the respondents as obtaining at the time of their initial selection cannot be granted to them, though they have succeeded before the writ Court. Except five of them, the respondents who were declared successful pursuant to Notification dated 16th November 2010 have now been promoted in the rank of ASI/RPF but the grievance raised on behalf of the respondents represented by Mr. Krishna Kumar, the learned counsel in LPA No. 206 of 2018 and Mr. Sakaldeo Singh, the learned counsel in LPA No. 79 of 2018 pertains to their seniority had they been promoted under Rule 72 from the initial date of their selection. 33. Rule 70 and 72 of RPF Rules, 1987 are extracted below : “70. Procedure for promotion of enrolled members of the Force : 70.1 The age limit, length of service and other matters relating to promotions and procedures for determining the seniority on appointment or on promotion shall be in accordance with these rules or where no provision has been made herein for these matters, be in accordance with the Directives. 70.2 A panel shall be drawn up preferably each year by the Departmental Promotion Committee for each specified category of posts which are required to be filled on the basis of promotion. 70.3 The number of candidates called for selection under rule 71 shall, ordinarily, be three times the number required to be empanelled and their names shall be notified thirty days in advance of the date fixed for holding selection: Provided that the name of any enrolled member who has continuously failed to qualify in three attempts shall not be taken into consideration for three subsequent selection for that rank, while calling the candidates for selection as specified above: Provided further that a candidate whose work and conduct has been assessed as ‘below average’ or whose integrity has been found to be doubtful in two or more years out of the five years preceding the selection shall not be empanelled. 70.4 The size of a panel drawn up in accordance with sub-rule (2) shall ordinarily be such as shall provide for all existing vacancies and vacancies anticipated within the next twelve months from the date on which the Departmental Promotion Committee is constituted plus ten percent of such total and limited to percentage, if any, specified in Schedule IV against that category. 70.5 Nomination of members of Departmental Promotion Committee for holding selections to various ranks mentioned in column (1) of the Table below shall be made by the superior officers mentioned against that rank, in column (2) of the said Table. …........................................................................................................................................ ............................................................................................................................................ ............................................................................................................................................. 70.7.(a) All panels drawn up by the Departmental Promotion Committee shall be submitted for approval to the authority who nominated the said Committee. 70.7.(b) If the said authority does not accept the recommendations of the said Committee, it shall record the reasons for the same and the matter shall be referred to the next higher authority, which may, for reasons to be recorded in writing pass such orders as are considered appropriate. 70.8 A panel drawn up in accordance with this rule shall remain operative for a period of one year from the date of its approval or till it is exhausted, whichever is earlier. 72. Guidelines for holding limited departmental competition : 72.1 Applications from eligible candidates for appearing in the limited departmental competition to the ranks of Head Constable and Assistant Sub-Inspector shall be invited thirty days in advance of the proposed date of holding the said competition. 72.2 The procedure for holding the said competition shall be the same as provided in rules 70 and 71 except sub-rule (3) of the said rules. 72.3 A panel shall be drawn from amongst the candidates securing sixty percent marks or more in the order of merit.” 34. As it would appear on a glance at the aforesaid rules, promotion under Rule 72 is merit selection whereas Rule 70 lays down the procedure for regular promotion in the cadre of ASI. A constable/ Head constable with ten years of qualifying service gets a kind of out of turn promotion if he qualifies under Rule 72. All the respondents were selected under Rule 72 and except Ajit Kumar Mahapatra, Sanjay Kumar Singh, Ratneshwar Prasad, Sanjay Kumar Muduli and Rakesh Kumar Pathak, others have been promoted in the rank of ASI under Rule 70. All the respondents were selected under Rule 72 and except Ajit Kumar Mahapatra, Sanjay Kumar Singh, Ratneshwar Prasad, Sanjay Kumar Muduli and Rakesh Kumar Pathak, others have been promoted in the rank of ASI under Rule 70. On account of illegal and arbitrary cancellation of select list they have suffered loss of seniority. No doubt a select list candidate has no legal right for selection but cancellation of the select list having been found illegal and arbitrary, they must be compensated in terms of money [Refer: “United States of America in Patterson v. State of Alabama”,[(1934) 294 US 600 : “We have frequently held that in the exercise of our appellate jurisdiction we have power not only to correct error in the judgment under review but to make such disposition of the case as justice requires. And in determining what justice requires. And in determining what justice does require, the Court is bound to consider any change, either in fact or in law, which has supervened since the judgment was entered.”]] 35. Having considered the entire facts and circumstances in the case, we are of the opinion that the contesting respondents before us may be compensated by awarding compensation of Rs.50,000/- each. 36. Ordered accordingly. 37. Ajit Kumar Mahapatra, Sanjay Kumar Singh, Ratneshwar Prasad, Sanjay Kumar Muduli and Rakesh Kumar Pathak shall be promoted in the rank of ASI with effect from 14th July 2022 by creating supernumerary posts if there is no vacancy. 38. Both the Letters Patent Appeals are dismissed, with costs and direction as above.