ORDER : 1. At the outset, it is relevant to note that the present writ petition was preferred by total 119 petitioners. Vide order dated 20.04.2022, the petition was dismissed qua petitioners Nos.4, 5, 10, 13, 22, 24, 31, 40, 42, 43, 47, 54, 55, 56, 68, 69, 73, 74, 81, 82, 83, 87, 88, 98, 101, 102, 103 & 104 i.e. 28 petitioners. The present petition now survives only qua the remaining petitioners and therefore the present judgment would govern all the petitioners except petitioners Nos.4, 5, 10, 13, 22, 24, 31, 40, 42, 43, 47, 54, 55, 56, 68, 69, 73, 74, 81, 82, 83, 87, 88, 98, 101, 102, 103 & 104 (28 in number). 2. The present writ petition has been preferred against the information/communication dated 20.09.2019 (Annexure-6) whereby complete recruitment process pertaining to recruitment of ‘Watchmen for manning posts’ undertaken by the Food Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as ‘the FCI’) has been cancelled. 3. The case of the petitioners is that in pursuance to advertisement No. FCI-RAJASTHAN/01/2017 issued by the FCI for recruitment to the post of ‘Watchmen for manning posts’ in its Depots and Offices for 281 number of vacancies, all the petitioners had applied. After the completion of the selection process including the Written Test, Physical Endurance Test (PET) and Medical Test, on 28.03.2018, the provisional select list was issued by the respondent Department in terms of which all the petitioners stood selected. 4. Being provisionally selected, the petitioners were awaiting appointment orders but on 20.09.2019, an information was uploaded by the respondent Department on its official website to the effect that before issuing the appointment orders to the successful candidates, a Committee was constituted at the regional level for verification of the documents and the Committee pointed out certain discrepancies/irregularities and therefore, the matter was referred to the CBI for investigation. As per the report of the CBI, serious irregularities were found in the written test and attendance sheet of PET of certain candidates and therefore, criminal case has been directed to be registered. As the CBI report proves that no sanctity had been maintained in the recruitment process and there had been irregularities and impersonation in the same, the recruitment process stands cancelled. It is against the said information dated 20.09.2019 uploaded on the official website of the respondent Department that the present writ petition has been preferred. 5. As the CBI report proves that no sanctity had been maintained in the recruitment process and there had been irregularities and impersonation in the same, the recruitment process stands cancelled. It is against the said information dated 20.09.2019 uploaded on the official website of the respondent Department that the present writ petition has been preferred. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners raised the following grounds: (i) Similar recruitment process was conducted for the States of Gujarat, Telangana, Andhra Pradesh and Kerala also and discrepancies were found in the said recruitment process too, but the complete process has not been cancelled in any of the States. Only the tainted candidates have been excluded and those untainted have been afforded appointment. Therefore, the same process ought to have been adopted in the State of Rajasthan too and cancellation of complete recruitment process cannot be held to be valid. (ii) The same agency against which the allegations have been levelled qua the recruitment in question, was the recruitment agency in the State of Gujarat too and therein because of specific conclusion of only 4 candidates to be tainted, only they were excluded and other candidates were afforded appointment. (iii) So far as the present recruitment is concerned, only 14 candidates had been concluded by the CBI to be involved and even the criminal case had been directed to be registered against those 14 candidates only. Therefore, when the tainted candidates were specifically identified, only they could have been penalised and all the remaining candidates who were not found to be involved in any sought of malpractice could not have been denied appointment and the complete recruitment process ought not to have been cancelled. (iv) The present was not a case of mass cheating or mass irregularities. Herein, tainted candidates were specifically identified and numbered to 14 only. Out of 281 provisionally selected candidates, 59 were suspected by the Committee constituted by the Department and further against only 14, discrepancies were found even by the CBI. Therefore, because of any irregularity on the part of 14 candidates, all the remaining candidates cannot be penalised. (v) The present vacancies had been notified by the respondent Department after a period of 13 years and the petitioners who had put in their years of hard work to get selected, cannot be deprived of their legitimate right of appointment after qualifying all the stages of selection. (v) The present vacancies had been notified by the respondent Department after a period of 13 years and the petitioners who had put in their years of hard work to get selected, cannot be deprived of their legitimate right of appointment after qualifying all the stages of selection. (vi) The order whereby the agency in question had been blacklisted qua the recruitment process of Delhi had been quashed by the High Court of Delhi vide its judgment dated 25.04.2019 [LPA 264/2019 and C.M. No. 18014/2019 (for stay)] and therefore, when the agency itself had been granted the relief, the petitioners could not have been penalised as the complete case of Department is that the agency committed irregularities in the recruitment process. (vii) No FIR has been registered in the matter till date. In support of his submissions, learned counsel relied upon the following judgments: (i) Joginder Pal and Others vs. State of Punjab and Others, (2014) 6 SCC 644 (ii) Girjesh Shrivastava and Others vs. State of M.P. and Others, (2010) 10 SCC 707 (iii) Union of India and Another vs. Rajesh P.U. Puthuvalnikathu and Another, (2003) 7 SCC 255 (iv) Kumari Anamica Mishra and Another vs. U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad and Others, AIR 1990 SC 461 (v) Union of India vs. Manoj Kumar Sharma, (2016) 2 RLW (Raj.) 1599 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents raised the following grounds: (i) The agency in question which conducted the present recruitment process was the same agency which was granted contract for the States of Delhi, Telangana and Kerala also. So far as the State of Gujarat is concerned, it was not the present agency in question and there were no direct complaint against the said agency qua the State of Gujarat therefore, no comparison with the recruitment process of State of Gujarat can be made in the present matter. So far as the present agency is concerned, complaints qua the recruitment process conducted for the State of Delhi were also received and therein also a CBI inquiry was conducted. After CBI investigation report, specific conclusions of irregularities committed by the agency were arrived at and therefore, the complete recruitment process for Delhi also was cancelled. The petitioners have intentionally not pleaded about Delhi in the complete petition despite being fully aware of the fact that the recruitment process of Delhi also stood cancelled. After CBI investigation report, specific conclusions of irregularities committed by the agency were arrived at and therefore, the complete recruitment process for Delhi also was cancelled. The petitioners have intentionally not pleaded about Delhi in the complete petition despite being fully aware of the fact that the recruitment process of Delhi also stood cancelled. (ii) The same agency which was granted contract for the recruitment process for the State of Rajasthan was granted the contract for Delhi also and therein also severe irregularities and impersonation were proved. The said fact itself is evident to justify cancellation of the complete recruitment process which involved of clear irregularities. (iii) So far as the present recruitment process is concerned, total 281 candidates were provisionally selected and at the initial stage of document verification by the Regional Committee constituted by the Department, 59 cases were prima facie found to be comprising of discrepancies such as variation in signatures in attendance sheets of written test and PET, no signature on OMR sheet, no signature on the attendance sheet itself. Meaning thereby, out of 281 selected candidates, discrepancies regarding 59 candidates were found prima facie at the initial stage. Therefore, further investigation by the CBI was called for. An overall evaluation of the report dated 06.06.2018 of the Committee and the report dated 10.07.2019 of CBI specifically prove that severe irregularities were committed during the complete recruitment process and the agency did not undertake fair process therefore, it was a clear case of irrregularities and hence the only measure which could have been adopted by the Department was the cancellation of the complete process. (iv) So far as the identification of 14 candidates is concerned, the same is also not factually correct. These 14 candidates were those qua whom variation in the signature was prima facie found to be existing as per the CBI report and therefore, a criminal case was directed to be registered against them but evidently the said number of 14 does not include those candidates who did not even sign the OMR/attendance sheet. As per the Committee report dated 06.06.2018, there were almost 8 of such candidates too. Further, it had been specifically observed by the Department that certain complaints regarding the written test as well as PET were also received. However, as the complete process itself was cancelled, no further probe into the matter was made. As per the Committee report dated 06.06.2018, there were almost 8 of such candidates too. Further, it had been specifically observed by the Department that certain complaints regarding the written test as well as PET were also received. However, as the complete process itself was cancelled, no further probe into the matter was made. Had the matter been further investigated, further irregularities and impersonation would have been found. The said facts were sufficient to show that the complete process stood vitiated and therefore, the cancellation of complete process was perfectly valid. (v) Even otherwise, it is settled proposition of law that mere selection does not entitle any candidate to claim appointment. It is the discretion of the recruiting agency/State to offer appointment. The State/recruiting agency is empowered to deny appointment on reasons found to be valid and just. (vi) So far as registration of the criminal case against 14 candidates is concerned, an FIR was very well registered and even a charge-sheet has been filed. The said fact is also evident from order dated 20.09.2019 (Annexure-R/9) wherein it has been observed as under: “Whereas, an FIR bearing No. 405/2017 was also registered at PS - Sadar, District Dausa for impersonation and charge sheet dated: 21.12.2017 filed by the local police in the court of CJM, Dausa.” (vii) So far as only 14 candidates being tainted or identified is concerned, the said 14 had been identified out of 59, who were prima facie suspected by the Committee. The number of 14 is not out of 281 but the same is out of 59. The investigation by the CBI was conducted only against those 59 prima facie suspected by the Committee and not against complete 281 provisionally selected candidates. Had the investigation been made against complete 281 candidates, there were sure shot chances of more of them being tainted. In the overall facts and the circumstances, it was clearly evident that the complete process had vitiated. (viii) It cannot be concluded that the tainted candidates had been identified in the matter. In the present matter, the sanctity of the recruiting agency itself was tainted and therefore, it cannot be concluded that those tainted were identified/segregated. The complete process smacked of irregularities and therefore, the cancellation of the complete process to maintain the sanctity and integrity could have been the only reasonable consequence. In the present matter, the sanctity of the recruiting agency itself was tainted and therefore, it cannot be concluded that those tainted were identified/segregated. The complete process smacked of irregularities and therefore, the cancellation of the complete process to maintain the sanctity and integrity could have been the only reasonable consequence. (ix) So far as quashing of the order of blacklisting of the agency in question qua the recruitment process of Delhi is concerned, the same was quashed only to the extent of its debarment/blacklisting. So far as other allegations are concerned, it was left open by the Hon’ble Court for the Department to pursue the appropriate remedies. Therefore, the judgment dated 25.04.2019 cannot be concluded to bear a finding that the agency was not involved in irregularities or impersonation. (x) The present writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the sole ground of concealment of fact as names of four of the present petitioners found mention in the list of tainted candidates identified by the CBI and against whom criminal proceedings were directed to be initiated. The said fact has clearly been concealed in the present petition and moreover, the said petitioners cannot even otherwise be granted any relief as in the CBI investigation, they had been found guilty of variation in signatures. 7. In support of his submissions, learned counsel relied upon following judgments: (i) Sachin Kumar and Others vs. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board (DSSSB) and Others, (2021) 4 SCC 631 (ii) Food Corporation of India and Others vs. Bhanu Lodh and Others, (2005) 3 SCC 618 (iii) Shankarsan Dash vs. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 47 (iv) Jatinder Kumar and Others vs. State of Punjab and Others, (1985) 1 SCC 122 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. The core question involved in the present petition is whether the complete recruitment in question could have been cancelled and whether the tainted and untainted candidates could have been segregated and those untainted should/could have been afforded appointment. 10. For adjudication of the above issue, the aspect to be considered would be whether the tainted candidates were specifically identified in the present matter and could have been segregated from those untainted. 11. 10. For adjudication of the above issue, the aspect to be considered would be whether the tainted candidates were specifically identified in the present matter and could have been segregated from those untainted. 11. The Committee vide its report dated 06.06.2018 observed and concluded as under: “Committee Report As directed by the competent authority, the committee constituted to check the data of the candidates selected in recruitment undertaken for watch and wards as per direction contained in FCI HQrs letter no. Vig. 21 (510/2018/WZ/MP/nil dated 09.05.2018, visited the office of the Recruiting agency M/s ACE Integrated Solutions Limited at its office B-13, DSIDC Complex in Parparganj Industrial Area New Delhi and Sahibabad Industrial Area Ghaziabad, UP on 28.05.2018. The committee collected the Original OMR Sheets of the selected candidates at Sahibabad Office of the agency and scrutinized them. The committee again visited the office of the Agency at Sahibabad on 29.5.2019, segregated and collected the Attendance Sheets for written examination of the selected candidates and also obtained Attendance Sheets for documents verification and Physical Endurance Test. The Original OMR sheets were sealed in an envelope and the envelop was signed by the committee members and the representative of the agency. Attendance sheets for written test, attendance sheets for PET were also got sealed in separate envelops. The sealed envelopes were handed over to the committee by the agency. The photographs and signatures of the selected candidates from the OMR sheets, attendance sheets for Written Test and attendance sheets for documents verification & PET were checked and following observations were made in addition to other discrepancies: Slight variation in signatures Variation in Signatures OMR Sheet not signed Attendance Sheet not signed 18 30 01 06 Detailed observation enclosed as Annexure-A. The above observations have been made by the Committee prima facie as a layman, however the actual discrepancies/variations in signature etc of the candidates is subject to verification by outside expert agencies. Besides this one candidate Ramkesh Meena (Roll No. 6085044360) has tried to sign as Ramkesh Kumar Meena in OMR sheet but later on has stroked ‘Kumar’ from the signature. In case of Jalam Singh (Roll No. 7017006137), there is overwriting in the name of the candidate in OMR sheet and variation in signature in attendance sheet for PET. Besides this one candidate Ramkesh Meena (Roll No. 6085044360) has tried to sign as Ramkesh Kumar Meena in OMR sheet but later on has stroked ‘Kumar’ from the signature. In case of Jalam Singh (Roll No. 7017006137), there is overwriting in the name of the candidate in OMR sheet and variation in signature in attendance sheet for PET. Conclusion: From the above observation it is found that some of the candidates’ signatures are varying in different degrees in Attendance Sheets for Written test and PET attendance sheets. One of the candidates, Ram Kumar Jat (Roll No. 2024009431), has not signed OMR sheet, even after that he has been selected by the agency. There is overwriting in OMR sheet by one of the candidates in his name and cutting/alteration of signature by another candidate in OMR sheet. In the light of the discrepancies observed, the committee is of the view that further investigation in the matter may be assigned to outside expert agencies.” 12. A bare perusal of the above report shows that it was not the case of only variation in signatures but also the OMR/attendance sheet having not even been signed by number of candidates. Meaning thereby, their signatures could not have been compared or sent for any FSL report for comparison. The same were clearly the cases wherein in absence of signatures, candidates could not have been declared selected. These candidates were clearly in addition to those 14 whose signatures had specifically been found to be varying. It is also clear on record that the CBI investigation qua those 59 found to be suspected by the Committee had only been made. Meaning thereby, the complete investigation regarding all 281 candidates does not find to have been conducted. The said fact is evident from the order dated 20.09.2019 wherein it is observed as under: “Whereas, CBI Jaipur vide letter No. DP JAI 2019 No. PE JAI 2018 A 0001 dated : 10.07.2019 has submitted investigation report (Self Contained Note) wherein, it is stated that during investigation of the above case, the CBI, Jaipur has found that Left Hand Thump Impression (LHTI) of total 59 suspected candidates from among the list of selected candidates were sent for comparison and expert opinion. CFSL Report No. CFSL-2019/A-149/1400 dated 23.04.2019 was received which has revealed that out of these 59 suspected LHTI in 14 instances, the LHTI of candidates on the written exam permission letter & attendance sheet are different from that of the LHTI of candidates as appearing in the attendance sheet of Physical Endurance Test.” It is out of 59 candidates that signatures of 14 were found to be varying and these 14 does not include those who had not even signed the OMR/attendance sheet. 13. Further, it is also clear on record that the complaint had been received about the irregularity in signatures during written test and PET also. Therefore, the conclusion as arrived at by the respondent Department that the direct or indirect involvement of the recruiting agency could not have been ruled out in the whole procedure, prima facie seems to hold water. 14. Coming on the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners, Rajesh P.U. Puthuvalnikathu (supra) was the matter wherein there were no serious grievances of any malpractices in the process of written examination. That was a matter wherein certain ineligible candidates had been selected and therefore it was held that those 31 ineligible candidates could have been clearly identified and hence the complete selection process could not have been cancelled. Manoj Kumar Sharma (supra) was the case wherein the Court specifically concluded that there was no allegation of large scale manipulation or a finding that the case of three candidates cannot be scrutinized individually or that it is not physically feasible to scrutinize case of each candidate. Therein, the Court reached to a specific finding that there was not a word against the two out of the three selected candidates and therefore, the cancellation of the entire selection was directed to be quashed. In the case of Joginder Pal (supra), the State itself had come forward and showed its willingness to take back those candidates who were non-tainted and were selected on the basis of their merit. In pursuance to the said affidavit of the State, the Court held that if the persons who were appointed under the same environment, had been allowed to continue, there was no reason to deprive the same benefit to the petitioners therein. In pursuance to the said affidavit of the State, the Court held that if the persons who were appointed under the same environment, had been allowed to continue, there was no reason to deprive the same benefit to the petitioners therein. Girjesh Shrivastava (supra) was a matter wherein certain family members of the committee members had been selected and therefore, the Court held that the illegal beneficiaries could have been weeded out and therefore the entire selection process should not have been struck down. Kumari Anamica Mishra (supra) was the case wherein on account of improper feeding into the computer, some of the candidates who performed better in the written examination were not called and the candidates who secured lesser marks in the written examination were called for interview and were selected. Therein also, the less meritorious candidates were clearly identified and therefore, the Court, while setting aside the recruitment directed for fresh interviews of all the eligible candidates on the basis of written examination. 15. The ratio as laid down in all the above mentioned judgments can be of no help to the present petitioners as in the present matter, there are clear allegations of irregularities and impersonation in the complete recruitment process. 16. The Hon’ble Apex Court in its recent judgment delivered in the case of Sachin Kumar (supra), while dealing with the issue as to – when the process of examination can stand vitiated? specifically answered the said issue in the terms that where the authority convening the selection process comes to the conclusion that the process has lost its legitimacy, it leaves no option but to cancel it in its entirety. The Hon’ble Apex Court, while dealing with the issue whether segregation/identification of the tainted candidates be made, held as under: “64..............The Deputy Chief Minister in recommending that the entire process be cancelled emphasised the systematic nature of the violations which had taken place. These violations may or may not involve all of the candidates within the ultimate zone of selection but that in out view is beside the point for the simple reason that the gravemen of the charge in the present case is not in regard to the taint which attaches to a specific group of persons but to the sanctity of the recruitment process as a whole. The precedents of this Court sufficiently demonstrate that when the credibility of an entire examination stands vitiated by systematic irregularities, the issue then is not about seeking to identify the candidates who are tainted.” 17. The Court, further, dealing with the issue that such cancellation would cause hardship to the candidates who are not found to be involved in the wrongdoing held as under: “66. Recruitment to public services must command public confidence. Persons who are recruited are intended to fulfil public functions associated with the functioning of the Government. Where the entire process is found to be flawed, its cancellation may undoubtedly cause hardship to a few who may not specifically be found to be involved in wrongdoing. But that is not sufficient to nullify the ultimate decision to cancel an examination where the nature of the wrongdoing cuts through the entire process so as to seriously impinge upon the legitimacy of the examinations which have been held of recruitment.” 18. Further, it is settled proposition of law that the successful candidates do not acquire any indefeasible right to be appointed against the existing vacancies and that the State is under no legal obligation to fill up all or any of the vacancies. The Constitutional Bench in the case of Shankarsan Dash (supra) specifically held 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.” 19. In view of the ratio as laid down in the case of Sachin Kumar (supra) and in view of the observations made above, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the impugned information/communication dated 20.09.2019 (Annex.6) whereby the recruitment process in question had been cancelled. 20. The present writ petition being devoid of merits is dismissed. 21. Stay petition and all the pending applications also stand dismissed.