JUDGMENT Heard Shri Arimardan Singh Rajpoot, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel along with Shri Piyush Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents-appellants and Shri K.M. Asthana, learned counsel for the petitioners-respondents. 2. The present intra-court appeal has been filed by the respondents-appellants/State, arising from the order of the learned single judge dated 01.12.2017, passed in Writ-A No. 16890 of 2016 (Parmeshwari Dayal and 14 others v. State of U.P. and 8 others). By that order, the learned single judge has allowed that writ petition filed by 15 petitioners-respondents and quashed the order dated 17.03.2016, passed by the Principal Secretary, Matsya Utpadan Anubhag; order dated 18.3.2016 passed by the Director of Fisheries and, order dated 30.03.2016 passed by the Deputy Director Fisheries, Jhansi Division, Jhansi. Consequently, the petitioners (before the learned single judge), have been directed to be reinstated in service on the post of Fisherman/"Machua", together with all consequential benefits, except 50% backwages. 3. In the present intra-court appeal, by a detailed order dated 16.7.2018, a co-ordinate bench of this Court stayed, until further order, the operation and effect of the judgement under appeal. Pleadings have been exchanged. The matter has thus been heard. 4. On 15.1.2014, the Director of Fisheries, Uttar Pradesh called upon all Deputy Directors to initiate steps to fill up Group-D posts "Machhua"/Fisherman. These included 17 posts of Fisherman at Chitrakoot Dham, Division. Consequently, publication dated 16.1.2014 was issued inviting applications to fill up 17 posts of Fisherman. 9 of those posts were left open for General Category whereas 4 posts each were reserved for Scheduled Castes and OBCs. No post was reserved for Scheduled Tribes. By way of horizontal reservation, 3 posts were reserved for women and one post each was reserved for ex-serviceman and dependents of freedom fighters. Age qualification, between 18-40 years, was provided. As to essential qualifications, experience at (i) Swimming, Diving, lifesaving; (ii) Manufacture of fishing implements and accessories; (iii) Net making and Net preservation; (iv) Fish handling, dressing, icing; (v) Method of transporting of live fish; (vi) Management of fish ponds, stocking, feeding and rearing of live fish; (vii) Angling with rods, hand lines, and night lines; and (viii) Boat repairs, rowing, selling etc., were prescribed. Certain additional qualifications were also advertised. The selection was to be made in accordance with the U.P. Department of Fisheries Group-D (Technical) Services Rules, 1982, as amended in 1993, hereinafter referred to as the Rules. Certain additional qualifications were also advertised. The selection was to be made in accordance with the U.P. Department of Fisheries Group-D (Technical) Services Rules, 1982, as amended in 1993, hereinafter referred to as the Rules. 5. Consequent to the above advertisement, a Selection Committee was constituted by the Deputy Director Fisheries, Jhansi Division, Jhansi, Dr. R.K. Gaur on 14.7.2000. The Additional City Magistrate, Jhansi was nominated to the Committee by the Chief Development Officer in his capacity as a person belonging to the Scheduled Caste. 6. Against 17 posts advertised at Chitrakoot Dham, Division, 3016 candidates submitted their applications. Of that, 1060 applications were rejected, upon scrutiny. The remaining 1956 applications were found in order. Those candidates were called for the test. To conduct the selection test, the Selection Committee at its meeting held on 9.7.2014, resolved to hold a two-stage test. At first, it was resolved to conduct the test over a period of 7 days (excluding the official holiday for the festival Eid ul Fitr), calling at least 200 candidates per day. It was also resolved; the candidates would be tested on 5 counts being net making/net inspection; angling etc.; rowing/boat repair; swimming/diving and storing fish etc. For each of the five parameters of that test, maximum marks to be awarded were fixed at 10. It was further resolved, any candidate who may be awarded zero marks at one of the 5 skill tests, would not be allowed to participate in the test, any further. 7. For the second stage of the test, all candidates who may secure 25 or more marks at the first stage were to be called for an Interview test, provided they had not been awarded zero marks at the last of the 5th skill test (at the previous/first stage). At that interview test, the shortlisted candidates were to be tested against 5 criteria bearing 10 marks each, namely, experience at-transportation of live fish; management of fishponds; feeding fish; personality test and, knowledge of spoken and written Hindi. Last, it was resolved, the result would be prepared based on the merit list to be drawn upon consolidation of the marks to be awarded at the two stages of the test, thus designed. 8. The original petitioners claim to have participated in the tests thus designed for them, from 27.07.2014 to 03.08.2014. The very next day, the Selection Committee declared the result. 8. The original petitioners claim to have participated in the tests thus designed for them, from 27.07.2014 to 03.08.2014. The very next day, the Selection Committee declared the result. It was published the same day, on the Notice Board, at the departmental office, at Chitrakoot. The selected candidates then claim to have been issued and dispatched Appointment Letters on the next day i.e., on 05.08.2014, by Registered Post. They are also described to have joined duties on 07.08.2014 and 08.08.2014, after completion of verification of their documents etc. 9. It was the further case of the petitioners that for the first time on 11.08.2014, a letter (dated 06.08.2014 issued by the Director of Fisheries) was received by the Deputy Director, Fisheries, Jhansi Division, disclosing therein a complaint had been received as to serious illegalities committed by the Selection Committee. Considering the same, an enquiry was instituted. Accordingly, a direction was issued to keep in abeyance the selection process. While the respondents-appellants/State claim service of that letter on the Deputy Director, Fisheries, Jhansi, through his 'Sahayak' on 07.08.2014 itself, the petitioners claim otherwise, disclosing service of that communication on the Deputy Director, Fisheries, Jhansi, on 11.08.2014. 10. Thereafter, a further complaint appears to have been made by the District President-Nishad, Kewat, Manjhi, Raikwar Kalyan Mahasabha, U.P., Jhansi, before the Divisional Commissioner, alleging gross illegalities committed in the selection process. While an enquiry was ordered by the District Magistrate, Jhansi to be conducted by the Chief Development Officer and certain communications may also have been issued by the Chief Development Officer, Jhansi to conduct a verification test to examine the eligibility of the selected candidates, in any case, on 09.09.2014, that complainant withdrew his complaint. Perusal of that communication however does not establish if any test had been conducted by the Chief Development Officer, at that stage. 11. It also appears, owing to such a dispute having arisen, the salary payment of the petitioners-respondents was withheld. At that stage, they approached this Court by means of Writ Petition No. 19177 of 2015 (Kaleem Uddin & 14 Ors. v. State of U.P.) for payment of their salary. That writ petition was disposed of by order dated 07.04.2015, requiring the claim of the petitioners-respondents to be considered and decided by a speaking order. At that stage, they approached this Court by means of Writ Petition No. 19177 of 2015 (Kaleem Uddin & 14 Ors. v. State of U.P.) for payment of their salary. That writ petition was disposed of by order dated 07.04.2015, requiring the claim of the petitioners-respondents to be considered and decided by a speaking order. Initially, an order dated 18.08.2015 was passed by the Special Secretary, State of U.P., providing for salary payments to be made to the petitioners-respondents. 12. Thereafter, on 11.01.2016, a further enquiry was conducted, and a report was submitted by the then Joint Director (Administration), to the Director, Fisheries with reference to the earlier letters dated 03.08.2014 and 20.08.2014 issued by the State Government, alleging completion of selection process contrary to the Rules. It is on that report, vide his communication dated 17.03.2016, the Joint Director, Fisheries passed the order to cancel the selections on the post of Fisherman/"Machua", at Chitrakoot Dham, Division. Consequently, on 18.07.2016, the Joint Director (Administration), required the Deputy Director, Fisheries Chitrakoot Dham to cancel the Appointment Letters of the petitioners dated 05.08.2014. In compliance thereto, by order dated 30.03.2016, the then Deputy Director, Fisheries, Jhansi further directed the Assistant Director, Fisheries, Chitrakoot Dham, Division to cancel the appointments of the petitioners. 13. In such facts, the petitioners-respondents filed the 2nd Writ - A No. 16890 of 2016 (Parmeshwari Dayal v. State of U.P. & 8 Ors.). That has been allowed by the learned single judge primarily on the reasoning none of the candidates who had applied for the selection had made any complaint; the facts noted in the enquiry report dated 11.01.2016 did not bring out any illegality in the selection process. There was only an error in the noting the marks of Ashish Kumar Vishwakarma, Roll No. 777 against the name of Arvind Kumar Navik, Roll No. 776, by one of the members of the Selection Committee. That error was found to have been rectified upon letter dated 31.07.2014, written by the said member of the Selection Committee, to its Chairman. The other illegality reported by Sri Bheesham Lal Verma on 11.01.2016 with respect to 13 candidates interviewed on 30.07.2014 and 02.08.2014 having been awarded marks in column no. That error was found to have been rectified upon letter dated 31.07.2014, written by the said member of the Selection Committee, to its Chairman. The other illegality reported by Sri Bheesham Lal Verma on 11.01.2016 with respect to 13 candidates interviewed on 30.07.2014 and 02.08.2014 having been awarded marks in column no. 5 only, leaving other columns blank-by marking straight/horizontal lines there across, was ignored on the reasoning that there was no complaint made by any affected candidate and that the Enquiry Officer had not enquired about that fact from the affected candidates. Therefore, it was inferred, no doubt may have been created as to the legality and fairness of the selection process. As to the presence of Ram Ratan during the test performed by his son, the same was found to be of no relevance as the said Ram Ratan was himself a "Machhua"/Fisherman, and not an expert. Having reached those fact conclusions, the learned single judge then relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in University of Mysore v. C.D. Govinda Rao, AIR 1965 SC 491 , primarily, to reason that the writ Court must be slow to interfere with the opinion of the experts and it is not for that Court to test the relative merit of the candidates. Since the enquiry report was drawn ex-parte, without affording opportunity of hearing, the same was categorised as unacceptable. Consequently, it has been held, the petitioners were terminated illegally, without being afforded due opportunity of hearing. Therefore, they have been found entitled to be reinstated in service, with 50% back wages. 14. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has submitted; the learned single judge has completely erred in - ignoring the relevant material and the fact reasoning arising therefrom that found the selection procedure completely vitiated, and in making re appreciation of the fact allegations. Such exercise may not have been entertained in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It has been emphasized, the selection process was vitiated in entirety, being ridden with gross illegalities, non-compliance, and blatant violation of the rules and procedure for selection set by the own resolution of the Selection Committee as also the entire selection process was stricken with malafide and corrupt practices. 15. It has been emphasized, the selection process was vitiated in entirety, being ridden with gross illegalities, non-compliance, and blatant violation of the rules and procedure for selection set by the own resolution of the Selection Committee as also the entire selection process was stricken with malafide and corrupt practices. 15. Though not permissible or required to investigate the fact allegations, in any case no material existed on the record to allow the learned single judge to reach any conclusion that the enquiry report dated 11.1.2016 submitted by the then Joint Director of Education Shri Bheesham Lal Verma did not arise on material on record. 16. Relying on that report, it has been strenuously urged, in the first place, Dr. Rajiv Kumar Gaur, Deputy Director of Fisheries, Jhansi, Chitrakoot (under whose supervision the impugned selection had been conducted), did not cooperate in the enquiry proceedings. After some efforts and persuasion, the said Dr. Rajiv Kumar Gaur produced some Appointment Letters, Joining Letters etc. of the selected candidates. However, he did not produce the Dispatch Register. 17. It was then noted, against 1956 candidates called for efficiency test, only 266 candidates participated over a long period of six days from 27.7.2014 to 3.8.2014. On 30.7.2014, of 300 candidates called, only 39 participated on that date. Seven candidates bearing roll nos. 574, 603, 604, 608, 666, 776 and 787, were awarded requisite marks against column 6 with respect to fish net making/fish net inspection whereas they were not awarded any marks against column nos. 7 (angling), 8 (rowing/boat repair), 9 (swimming/diving) and 10 (fisherman etc.). Thus, it was noted, though those candidates had obtained sufficient marks to have been permitted to participate in the next test at the 5-skills test first stage of the selection process, they were not allowed to participate further. Instead, the space meant for award of marks to those candidates under column nos. 7, 8, 9 and 10 were scored out by drawing horizontal lines. Further, certain candidates had been marked absent by one or more Selection Committee member/s while they were awarded marks by others. Similarly, on 2.8.2014, against another 300 candidates called, only 22 appeared. Similar discrepancies (as have been noted above), were noted with respect to four other candidates bearing Roll nos. 1472, 1494, 1600 and 1621. 18. Further, certain candidates had been marked absent by one or more Selection Committee member/s while they were awarded marks by others. Similarly, on 2.8.2014, against another 300 candidates called, only 22 appeared. Similar discrepancies (as have been noted above), were noted with respect to four other candidates bearing Roll nos. 1472, 1494, 1600 and 1621. 18. Then, after making note of discrepancies in the preparation of the result and the merit list, it has been specifically recorded, the Appointment Letters were dispatched to the candidates on 05.08.2014, itself, by Registered Post. However, despite the demand made, the Dispatch Register was not shown to the Enquiry Officer. At the same time, Appointment Letters were claimed to have been served on the selected candidates at Mahoba, Banda, Chitrakoot, Hamirpur. They also joined within two days of the date of alleged dispatch, that for after verification. Of that, no proof was shown. 19. It was further recorded; the enquiry officer could not record the statement of any employee of the department as they remained fearful of Dr. Rajiv Kumar Gaur. Thus, they refused to record their statement. 20. As to the further test allegedly conducted by the Chief Development Officer, only this much was orally informed to the Enquiry Officer that the complaint made in that regard had been withdrawn. Thus, the entire Selection Process was found to have been conducted in great hurry in a wholly irregular and illegal manner. 21. Second, great emphasis has been laid to the fact, despite communication of the letter dated 06.8.2014, Dr. Rajiv Kumar Gaur, the then Deputy Director Fisheries, Chitrakoot sought to complete the selection process by claiming dispatch of Appointment Letters and Joining Reports of the selected candidates. That exercise conducted in great hurry is stated to be not only vitiated but an eye wash. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel would submit, if such exercise had been carried out, even if in a great hurry, there would have existed documentary evidence to support the same. In absence of dispatch register shown to exist, it can never be believed that the Appointment Letters were dispatched to the selected candidates on 05.8.2014 itself as may have reached them the next day to further allow them to join on 07.8.2014. All the documentation was prepared to suit the convenience of the culprit, namely the then Deputy Director Fisheries, Dr. Rajiv Kumar Gaur. 22. All the documentation was prepared to suit the convenience of the culprit, namely the then Deputy Director Fisheries, Dr. Rajiv Kumar Gaur. 22. Then, it has been submitted, the petitioners-respondents led no evidence whatsoever to create any doubt as to the correctness of the observations made by the Enquiry Officer/Joint Director Administration, Sri Bheesham Lal Verma. Referring to the unexplained discrepancies in the award of marks, it has been vehemently urged, clearly the eligible candidates were either prevented from appearing at the Selection Test or were awarded/not awarded marks and attendance, contrary to the resolution of the Selection Committee, itself. That discrepancy led to rejection of candidature of many eligible candidates. Then, referring to many candidates appearing on the last date of the selection process and getting selected it has also been referred to as a circumstance that clearly established that the selection process was vitiated to the core. 23. In such facts, relying on a division bench decision of this Court in Arvind Kumar Pipal and Others v. Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P. Lucknow and Others, (2004) 2 AWC 1664 , it has been submitted, where the entire selection process is vitiated, requirement of individual candidates to furnish reply to individual notice, is not required while the Court considers the validity of the action of the State to cancel the selection process for the reason of the entire selection process being vitiated. Since it was not possible to separate the tainted from the meritorious, there existed no option but to cancel the entire selection. 24. On the other hand, Sri K.M. Asthana, learned counsel for the petitioners-respondents has first referred to facts that are stated to have been not correctly placed by the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel. He has thus emphasized - a conscious decision was taken by the Selection Committee on 03.8.2014 in accordance with the Government Order dated 09.1.2007, to fill up three posts earlier reserved for female candidates to be filled up by male candidates as no female candidate was found eligible. 25. Then, on 31.7.2014, Dr. M.A. Ansari, the minority member of the Selection Committee had clearly written to the Chairman of the Selection Committee to point out his inadvertent mistake in mentioning the marks awarded by him to Ashish Kumar Vishwakarma (at serial No. 777) against the name of another candidate Arvind Kumar Navik (at serial No. 776. 26. 25. Then, on 31.7.2014, Dr. M.A. Ansari, the minority member of the Selection Committee had clearly written to the Chairman of the Selection Committee to point out his inadvertent mistake in mentioning the marks awarded by him to Ashish Kumar Vishwakarma (at serial No. 777) against the name of another candidate Arvind Kumar Navik (at serial No. 776. 26. After the declaration of result on 04.8.2014 Appointment Letters were issued on 05.8.2014. Consequently, the selected candidates joined at districts Banda, Hamirpur, Chitrakoot and Mahoba between 07.8.2014 to 08.8.2014. 27. It is only thereafter that the letter allegedly written on 06.8.2014 was first received in the office of the Deputy Director Fisheries, on 11.8.2014. 28. He has strongly relied on the fact that none of the non-selected candidates, numbering about 3000, made any complaint against the selection process. The sole complaint made by the District President Nishad Kevat, Kashyap, Manjhi, Raiwkard, Kalyan Mahasabha U.P. dated 09.8.2014 came to be withdrawn by him on 09.9.2014, that too when according to the petitioners-respondents the selected candidates had been subjected to re-examination held on 04.9.2014, by the Chief Executive Officer, Jhansi. 29. As to the enquiry conducted by Sri Bheeshm Lal Verma, the Joint Director (Admin), strong reliance has been placed on certain information received by the petitioners-respondents under the Right to Information Act, 2005 indicating that no enquiry whatsoever had been conducted. That information is stated to have arisen in the year 2015- 16 whereas the Enquiry Report is dated 11.01.2016. 30. In such circumstances it has been pointed out, first by order dated 18.8.2015 passed by the Special Secretary, a conscious decision had been taken to ensure salary payments to the selected candidates in various administrative divisions, including Chitrakoot Dham. The consequential order is also described to have been issued by the Director Fisheries on 03.98.2015. Those orders arose after the complaint made by District President-Nishad, Kewat, Manjhi, Raikwar Kalyan Mahasabha, U.P., Jhansi was withdrawn following a re-examination held on 04.9.2014, by the Chief Executive Officer, Jhansi. 31. Thus, after the selection process had been found to be fair and proper and consequentially salary payments had been revived, a further motivated complaint was made by one Chaudhary Lalta Prasad Nishad who was a state minister, at the relevant time, addressed to the Chief Minister specifically, with respect to the selections conducted at Chitrakoot Dham division. 31. Thus, after the selection process had been found to be fair and proper and consequentially salary payments had been revived, a further motivated complaint was made by one Chaudhary Lalta Prasad Nishad who was a state minister, at the relevant time, addressed to the Chief Minister specifically, with respect to the selections conducted at Chitrakoot Dham division. Arising from that motivated complaint, a wholly ex parte enquiry report was submitted by Sri Bheeshm Lal Verma, the Joint Director (Admin) dated 11.1.2016. That report was contrary to the record. Relying on the information received by the petitioners-respondents under the Right to Information Act, 2005, the conduct of that enquiry has been doubted. 32. Then, it has been submitted that the cancellation of the selection is wholly ex parte. Neither the petitioners-respondents were allowed to participate in the enquiry proceedings, nor they were confronted with that enquiry report, nor any prior show cause notice was issued to the petitioners-respondents to explain any fact allegation of illegality alleged in the selection process. In a wholly ex parte manner and in complete denial of rules of natural justice, selection of all 15 Fishermen "Machhua" at Chitrakoot Dham division has been cancelled. Heavy reliance has been placed on three decisions of the Supreme Court in D.K. Yadav v. J.M.A. Industries Ltd. (1993) 3 SCC 259 , Mahipal Singh Tomar v. State of U.P. and Others (2013) 16 SCC 771 and Ratnesh Kumar Choudhary v. Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Patna and Others (2015) 15 SCC 151 . 33. Having heard learned counsel for parties and having perused the record, we find there is no dispute as to the correct facts. While Sri Asthana has laid great emphasis on certain aspects of the matter mainly with respect to the selection process found to have been conducted in accordance with law and of no complaint made by any of the unsuccessful candidates as also to the fact that the enquiry leading to the cancellation of the selection made and the cancellation process itself was wholly ex parte, those facts are not disputed to the respondents-appellants. In fact, the basic facts giving rise to the controversy remain admitted to both sides. 34. Thus, it is not disputed to the parties that the Selection Committee was headed by the then Deputy Director Fisheries, Jhansi Division, Jhansi Dr. R.K. Gaur. In fact, the basic facts giving rise to the controversy remain admitted to both sides. 34. Thus, it is not disputed to the parties that the Selection Committee was headed by the then Deputy Director Fisheries, Jhansi Division, Jhansi Dr. R.K. Gaur. It is also true that against 3016 candidates who initially applied for selection, only 1956 were found to be eligible to appear at the qualifying test. None of the remaining 1060 candidates complained. There is no defect alleged or found in the rejection of the candidature of any of those 1060 candidates as may have led to the cancellation of the selection held. It is also true, on 09.7.2014 the Selection Committee resolved to hold a two-stage test. First, five skills being Net Making/Net Inspection, Angling, Rowing/Boat Repair, Swimming/Diving and Storing fish etc. were to be tested. 35. Perhaps for the sake of convenience and efficient conduct of the first stage, considering a very large number of candidates had applied for selection, the Selection Committee had also resolved - any candidate who may obtain 'zero' marks against any of the five skill parameters (on which he was to be tested), or who may obtain less than 25 marks in all, at the first stage of the test would not be allowed to participate further at that stage or the next stage of the examination. Thus, such a candidate would be disqualified for the remaining selection process, at the first stage, itself. 36. At the second stage, an Interview test was resolved to be held by the Selection Committee. The candidates were to be tested on five parameters of maximum 10 marks each, being-experience in transportation of live fish, management of fishponds, feeding fish, personality test and knowledge of spoken and written Hindi. The final merit list was to be prepared on the strength of the cumulative marks awarded at the two stages of the selection process. 37. It is also not in dispute that the selection process was conducted over 7 days, by calling in excess of 200 candidates per day, starting from 27.7.2014. It is also not disputed that the result was prepared on 4.8.2014 and Appointment Letters came to be issued on 5.8.2014. Those were allegedly dispatched by Registered Post. Against Appointment Letters thus issued to and received by the selected candidates, they claim to have joined on 7.8.2014 and on 8.8.2014, itself. 38. It is also not disputed that the result was prepared on 4.8.2014 and Appointment Letters came to be issued on 5.8.2014. Those were allegedly dispatched by Registered Post. Against Appointment Letters thus issued to and received by the selected candidates, they claim to have joined on 7.8.2014 and on 8.8.2014, itself. 38. While such facts may not be in dispute, at the enquiry held, it was tested if the selections were conducted and completed and Appointment Letters were issued in accordance with law, as claimed. The order impugned before the learned single judge dated 17.3.2016, was passed by the Principal Secretary, based on the report of the Enquiry Officer dated 11.01.2016 that found serious illegalities with respect to record of attendance and participation of various candidates in the selection test and also award of marks. Though the petitioners-respondents may be right that that report was not furnished to them, at the same time, there is nothing to doubt the conduct of that enquiry or its contents. A copy of the same is also on record. 39. Perusal of the same indicates, that that enquiry did encompass within its scope, by necessary implication, the conduct of the Chairman of the Selection Committee, Dr. R.K. Gaur, Deputy Director Fisheries, Jhansi. He did not cooperate. He adopted an obstructionist approach. He first did not make available to the Enquiry Officer the original dispatch register that may have established the date and dispatch of the Appointment Letters. Neither the final Select List prepared by the Selection Committee nor all the Appointment Letters nor the Dispatch Register were produced, by Dr. R.K.Gaur. 40. At any public open examination, observance of transparency is a certain marker of fairness of the procedure adopted. On the other hand, opaqueness at that is a clear indicator of wrongdoing and mal practices. In the first place, though the selection process took 7 days to complete - on 3.8.2014, the result was prepared the next date itself i.e., 4.8.2014. All Appointment Letters were claimed to have been dispatched on 5.8.2014 such that the selected candidates came to be served with such Appointment Letters the next day as may have allowed them to join within the next two days itself. Yet, material particulars and supporting documents to establish preparation of the Select List/the Result, Dispatch made and joining offered, remained from being established. 41. Yet, material particulars and supporting documents to establish preparation of the Select List/the Result, Dispatch made and joining offered, remained from being established. 41. Considering it was proclaimed that all the Appointment Letters were dispatched not by hand but by Registered Post, the record of the third party/agent i.e., the postal receipts would be very crucial/critical to establish if actually Select List had been prepared, result declared and Appointment Letters issued and served in unusually quick time all before receipt of the letter dated 6.8.2014, issued by the Director Fisheries, to put the selection process on hold. On the test of prudence, the lack of proof as to those vital events, created a more than reasonable doubt as to the truthfulness of the claim made. In fact, it could never be acknowledged as true that such a fact occurrences had taken place. That adverse inference was duly drawn by the Enquiry Officer, on the strength of the facts before him. 42. Then, for the purpose of interference claimed in writ jurisdiction, it is sufficient to note that the petitioners-respondents failed to bring on record any details of the postal dispatch being claimed by them. If the petitioners-respondents claim that they had been duly selected and issued Appointment Letters through registered post that were received by them within time, allowing them enough time to join on 7.8.2014 and 8.8.2014, the burden remained on them to bring on record the postal receipts together with the envelope and details, to dispute the correctness of the Enquiry Report, stating the contrary. The petitioners-respondents failed to discharge that essential burden placed on them. Yet, the issue has escaped the attention of the learned single judge. In absence of any material before him, to doubt the correctness of the fact finding reached by the Enquiry Officer, the learned single judge could not have brushed aside that fact conclusion drawn by the Enquiry Officer, and he could not have drawn his own fact conclusion. That exercise fell wholly outside the scope of judicial review. The writ Court ought to have declined it's interference, in such facts. That, to our mind is the first error (on principle) committed by the learned single judge. 43. Coming to the core issue of illegality committed at the selections, the Enquiry Officer further found, on 30.7.2014, against 300 candidates called, only 39 appeared on that date. Seven candidates bearing roll nos. That, to our mind is the first error (on principle) committed by the learned single judge. 43. Coming to the core issue of illegality committed at the selections, the Enquiry Officer further found, on 30.7.2014, against 300 candidates called, only 39 appeared on that date. Seven candidates bearing roll nos. 574, 603, 604, 608, 666, 776 and 787 obtained more than 'zero' marks at the test on one of the five skills namely, Net making and Net preservation. Yet, strangely, and inexplicably, they were awarded either zero marks by one or the other member of the Selection Committee or marked 'Absent' by the other member/s of that Selection Committee, at all the remaining four skill tests. 44. It is unquestionable, those seven candidates were present at the examination center. Therefore, they may never have been marked 'absent' at any of the remaining 4 skill tests, by any member of the Selection Committee. Second, they were first made to participate in one of the five skill tests. Despite five of those candidates bearing roll nos. 574, 603, 604, 608 and 666 having passed that test, they were clearly not allowed to compete further in the selection process but were marked Absent by one or the other members of the Selection Committee. No reason whatsoever exists on record to explain that event and no reason may ever exist to explain how a candidate may ever be awarded both marks (zero) and also be marked Absent, at the same time. 45. Clearly, they were illegally disqualified to participate further in the selection process. The case of the other two candidates bearing roll nos. 776 and 777 is stranger. Though they were awarded marks (more than zero), by one member of the Selection Committee against such test, they were either marked absent by the other two members or awarded zero marks by one member and marked absent by the other. Plainly, that is absurd. 46. The Enquiry Officer further noted similar illegality in the award of marks to five other candidates bearing roll nos. 1402, 1494, 1508, 1600 and 1621. Here, though these candidates obtained pass marks in the test for Net making and Net preservation, yet they were awarded zero marks in all other tests, clearly indicating that they had not been tested beyond that stage. 47. 1402, 1494, 1508, 1600 and 1621. Here, though these candidates obtained pass marks in the test for Net making and Net preservation, yet they were awarded zero marks in all other tests, clearly indicating that they had not been tested beyond that stage. 47. Though it is possible that a candidate may obtain zero marks in one test, it is difficult to accept that he was first awarded zero marks by all examiners at one skill test, yet, he was allowed to participate at all further/remaining tests, contrary to the own resolution of the Selection Committee dated 9.7.2014 under which any candidate who may fail at any one of the five skill tests may not be allowed to participate any further in the remaining skill tests. 48. Then, in a most casual or brazen manner it was first claimed by Dr. M.A. Ansari, on 31.07.2014 that he had mistakenly mentioned marks of Ashish Kumar Vishwakarma, Roll No. 777 against Arvind Kumar Navik, Roll No. 776. The marks awarded to Ashish Kumar Vishwakarma and Arvind Kumar Navik are as below: Øekad@jksy uaŒ uke firk dk uke ,oa fuoklh@tuin v/;{k o lnL;ksa }kjk fn;s x;s vadksa dk fooj.k Tkky cqukuk@tky dk ijh{k.k clh@dkVk@Mksajh@dfV;k ls f'kdkj@tky ls f'kdkj Ukko [ksuk@uko ejEer rSjkdh xksrk[kksjh eNyh@mBuk@lQkbZ djuk ,oa cQZ yxkuk 776 Jh vjfoUn dqekj ukfod Ykyeksgj ukfod@tkSuiqj v/;{k A A A A A lnL; 04 00 00 00 00 lnL; A A A A A lnL; A A A A A 777 Jh vk'kh"k dqekj fo'odekZ ohjsUæ dqekj fo'odekZ@tkykSu v/;{k 05 00 00 00 00 lnL; 07 00 00 00 00 lnL; 00 00 00 00 00 lnL; A A A A A 49. The explanation and its acceptance by the Selection Committee is farcially comical as it is doubtful. As to how Dr. M.A. Ansari remembered his 'mistake' the day after and how it came to be informed and corrected, has remained a secret. Suffice to observe, in the absence of the Select List being shown prepared, that explanation could never have been entertained by the Enquiry Officer. 50. The Enquiry Officer further expressed his suspicion at the legality and regularity of the selection process as in his opinion, the legal formalities of verification of documents etc., may not have been possible to be completed in the short time of two days from the declaration of result till the date of joining. 50. The Enquiry Officer further expressed his suspicion at the legality and regularity of the selection process as in his opinion, the legal formalities of verification of documents etc., may not have been possible to be completed in the short time of two days from the declaration of result till the date of joining. No material has been found existing, till date to prove that such exercise was carried out. 51. As to re-examination held on 04.9.2014, by the Chief Executive Officer, Jhansi, there is absolutely no evidence. The allegation of motivated complaint made by one Chaudhary Lalta Prasad Nishad on which the second enquiry arose fades into insignificance in the face of the findings of Sri Bheeshm Lal Verma, the Joint Director (Admin), recorded in his Enquiry Report dated 11.1.2016. 52. By way of the last nail in the coffin, so to say, the Enquiry Officer recorded a telling observation in his enquiry report that despite efforts, out of fear of Dr. R.K. Gaur none of his subordinate officers was forthcoming or willing to furnish any statement with respect to selection conducted and completed under his chairmanship. 53. For all the above gross illegalities and in any case incurable irregularities noted in the Enquiry Report, it was of no consequence that no complaint may have been received from any non-selected candidate. Rules of transparency, fairness and equality exist not to suit the humor or whims of any individual candidate. They do not exist only as grounds of challenge, at the hands of a petitioner in a judicial proceeding. Those rules work on their own. Being the driving force of justice, they work through and inform all State action, by their unimpeachable commanding presence. They draw perennial life, are omnipresent, and omnipotent, arising from the true effect of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In any case, they are not dependent on judicial proceeding arising, to come to life. Rather, they pre-exist the initiation of a judicial proceeding. Hence they work to aid and help in reaching a fair conclusion in that proceeding. 54. Therefore, they self-sustain for the common good of the citizenry, through all State action. Their effect is not a magical spell cast on their incantation, at the call of a victim/complainant. They self-arise and exist to lend - the only true character that every State action must be defined with. 54. Therefore, they self-sustain for the common good of the citizenry, through all State action. Their effect is not a magical spell cast on their incantation, at the call of a victim/complainant. They self-arise and exist to lend - the only true character that every State action must be defined with. Therefore, they can self-cure any State action, wherever and whenever need arises. Hence, the respondents-appellants were not only within their right to cancel such a thoroughly tainted selection but, they were duty bound to make that decision. 55. The learned single judge erred on principle in entering that essential fact-finding exercise and in any case further erred in reaching his own fact conclusion contrary to the conclusion reached by the Enquiry Officer, based on material on record. In the entirety of the facts noted above, the proven illegalities and error were grave and gave empirical proof of the things as they stood. Thus widespread malpractices were clearly seen to have been committed at the selections. They not only permeated through different layers of transparency but they destroyed the fibre of fairness that could hold together those layers. 56. In view of the above, the principle invoked by the learned single judge as to denial of opportunity of hearing and of the enquiry proceedings being ex parte, lost its application, in the facts of the present case. 57. It may not be forgotten that the principle invoked by the learned single judge remains a principle with an exception. It is not absolute. Once the malpractice at the selections permeates through different layers of a selection process to the extent that it destroys the filter of transparency, to the point, it is not possible to see if any of the 15 selected candidates was untainted the rules of natural justice that exist to otherwise aid just decision making as would further require prior issuance of show cause notice etc., would stand on a lower pedestal in the interest of fairness and transparency to be maintained at such public examinations. That public trust must be enforced first. In The Bihar School Examination Board v. Subhas Chandra Sinha and Ors. (1970) 1 SCC 648 , mass copying was committed at an examination center. It led to cancellation of the examination. Repelling the argument advanced to claim individual opportunity of hearing, it was observed : "13. That public trust must be enforced first. In The Bihar School Examination Board v. Subhas Chandra Sinha and Ors. (1970) 1 SCC 648 , mass copying was committed at an examination center. It led to cancellation of the examination. Repelling the argument advanced to claim individual opportunity of hearing, it was observed : "13. This is not a case of any particular individual who is being charged with adoption of unfair means but of the conduct of all the examinees or at least a vast majority of them at a particular center. If it is not a question of charging any one individually with unfair-means but to condemn the examination as ineffective for the purpose it was held. Must the Board give an opportunity to all the candidates to represent their cases ? We think not. It was not necessary for the Board to give an opportunity to the candidates if the examinations as a whole were being cancelled. The Board had not charged any one with unfair means so that he could claim to defend himself. The examination was vitiated by adoption of unfair means on a mass scale. In these circumstances it would be wrong to insist that the Board must hold a detailed inquiry into the matter and examine each individual case to satisfy itself which of the candidates had not adopted unfair means. The examination as a whole had to go." 58. Where the tainted and the non-tainted cannot be segregated, the fact that an otherwise wholly eligible candidate may suffer a harsh consequence of termination from service does not remain a factor to be weighed up by the Court. The larger interest of preserving and maintaining and enforcing fairness, transparency and sanctity at public examinations would far out weigh such individual prejudice, if any. In Krishan Yadav and another v. State of Haryana and others (1994) 4 SCC 165 , having found the entire examination and interview to be farcical, the Supreme Court observed as below : "20. In the above circumstances, what are we to do? The only proper course open to us is to set aside the entire selection. The plea was made that innocent candidates should not be penalised for the misdeeds of others. We are unable to accept this argument. In the above circumstances, what are we to do? The only proper course open to us is to set aside the entire selection. The plea was made that innocent candidates should not be penalised for the misdeeds of others. We are unable to accept this argument. When the entire selection is stinking, conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit, individual innocence has no place as "fraud unravels everything". To put it in other words, the entire selection is arbitrary. It is that which is faulted and not the individual candidates. Accordingly we hereby set aside the selection of Taxation Inspectors." 59. Seen in that light, the learned single judge has completely erred in principle, in overlooking these vital aspects of the case and in seeking to accept explanations as to the illegalities noted by the enquiry officer that had led to the impugned order being passed, cancelling the entire selection. There was neither any material nor any justification nor any occasion for the writ Court to do so. 60. In proceedings of judicial review, the learned single judge may have remained confined to examine, if there had existed cogent material before the State Government to cancel the entire selection process and whether that opinion of the State Government was formed on the consideration of that material. Once it is found that the answer to those queries was in the affirmative, the exercise of judicial review has to end there. The writ petition had to be dismissed. In any case, no interference may have been offered. 61. Besides the above error the learned single judge has also erred in principle in seeking to record the finding of fact. In the context of a judicial review that came to be made by the learned single judge, it never became open to the writ Court to record such findings of fact in such highly disputed fact situation. In any case, the record indicated to the Court the lack of any bona fide in the unsubstantiated claim made by the petitioners-respondents both as to attendance and award of irregular marks to a significant number of candidates and preparation of the Select List as also the issuance of Appointment Letters and their joining within two days from the date of issuance of such Appointment Letters. In fact, as noted above, the records clearly and unequivocally suggested otherwise. In fact, as noted above, the records clearly and unequivocally suggested otherwise. Hence, neither as to stage, it became open to the learned single judge to record a finding of fact nor as to material on record, such finding was invited. 62. Third, consequentially, the learned single judge has consequently erred in applying the principle as canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioners-respondents that opportunity of hearing should have been granted to the petitioners. 63. In Wander Ltd. v. Antox India P. Ltd. 1990 (Supp) SCC 727, in an appeal arising from an interlocutory injunction, the Supreme Court disapproved the approach of the division bench of the High Court, in interfering with the interlocutory order of the learned single judge. In that, it was laid down: "14. The appeals before the Division Bench were against the exercise of discretion by the Single Judge. In such appeals, the appellate court will not interfere with the exercise of discretion of the court of first instance and substitute its own discretion except where the discretion has been shown to have been exercised arbitrarily, or capriciously or perversely or where the court had ignored the settled principles of law regulating grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions. An appeal against exercise of discretion is said to be an appeal on principle. Appellate court will not reassess the material and seek to reach a conclusion different from the one reached by the court below if the one reached by that court was reasonably possible on the material. The appellate court would normally not be justified in interfering with the exercise of discretion under appeal solely on the ground that if it had considered the matter at the trial stage it would have come to a contrary conclusion. If the discretion has been exercised by the trial court reasonably and in a judicial manner the fact that the appellate court would have taken a different view may not justify interference with the trial court's exercise of discretion. After referring to these principles Gajendragadkar, J. in Printers (Mysore) Private Ltd. v. Pothan Joseph [ (1960) 3 SCR 713 : AIR 1960 SC 1156 ] : (SCR 721) "... These principles are well established, but as has been observed by Viscount Simon in Charles Osenton & Co. After referring to these principles Gajendragadkar, J. in Printers (Mysore) Private Ltd. v. Pothan Joseph [ (1960) 3 SCR 713 : AIR 1960 SC 1156 ] : (SCR 721) "... These principles are well established, but as has been observed by Viscount Simon in Charles Osenton & Co. v. Jhanaton [1942 AC 130] '...the law as to the reversal by a court of appeal of an order made by a judge below in the exercise of his discretion is well established, and any difficulty that arises is due only to the application of well settled principles in an individual case'." The appellate judgment does not seem to defer to this principle". (emphasis supplied) 64. That principle was then applied by the Supreme Court to intra court appeals arising in writ jurisdiction, in Roma Sonkar v. M.P. State Public Service Commission, (2018) 17 SCC 106 . It was observed: "3. We have very serious reservations whether the Division Bench in an intra-court appeal could have remitted a writ petition in the matter of moulding the relief. It is the exercise of jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench exercised the same jurisdiction. Only to avoid inconvenience to the litigants, another tier of screening by the Division Bench is provided in terms of the power of the High Court but that does not mean that the Single Judge is subordinate to the Division Bench. Being a writ proceeding, the Division Bench was called upon, in the intra-court appeal, primarily and mostly to consider the correctness or otherwise of the view taken by the learned Single Judge. Hence, in our view, the Division Bench needs to consider the appeal(s) on merits by deciding on the correctness of the judgment of the learned Single Judge, instead of remitting the matter to the learned Single Judge". (emphasis supplied) 65. Being an appeal on principle, we find that the learned single judge has clearly erred in applying the correct principle to the facts before him. As noted first, in exercise of discretionary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Court was never bound to interfere on the merits, overlooking the stark illegalities made out on the record. That again is an error on principle. 66. As noted first, in exercise of discretionary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Court was never bound to interfere on the merits, overlooking the stark illegalities made out on the record. That again is an error on principle. 66. Therefore, on all four principles, the order of the learned single judge is found to be erroneous. In absence of any patent illegality or perversity seen to exist in the conclusions drawn by the respondents-appellants, in cancelling the entire selection held, we do not find this to be a fit case to offer interference in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 67. As to the submission of Shri. Asthana that no enquiry had been conducted, we find no basis for the same. There is no doubt as to the same having been conducted by Sri Bheeshm Lal Verma, the then Joint Director (Admin). He submitted his report dated 11.01.2016. It resulted in the order dated 17.03.2016, passed by the Principal Secretary, Matsya Utpadan Anubhag; order dated 18.3.2016 passed by the Director of Fisheries and, order dated 30.03.2016 passed by the Deputy Director Fisheries, Jhansi Division, Jhansi cancelling the entire selection, on that basis. As to the fate of the first enquiry, undisputedly the complainant District President-Nishad, Kewat, Manjhi, Raikwar Kalyan Mahasabha, U.P., Jhansi, before the Divisional Commissioner had withdrawn his complaint on 09.09.2014. Resultantly, no enquiry report was submitted, on merits, on that complaint. As to the reexamination allegedly conducted while that complaint was pending, suffice it to note, there is absolutely no material to establish the conduct of that test. The plea is nothing more than a self-serving bald statement, in law. It is of no consequence. 68. Accordingly, this intra-Court appeal is allowed. The order impugned dated 01.12.2017 is set aside. The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to cost. 69. However, no part of the salary payment already made to any of the petitioners-respondents, may be reversed. At the same time, any such salary payment that may be outstanding for any work done, may not be paid.