# Aanjaney Tripathi & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 4 ILRA 366
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-04-23
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 5028 of 2012
- **Bench:** Irshad Ali
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/aanjaney-tripathi-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54914
- **Pages:** 15

## Text

_Characters 0–39,829 of 52,480. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39829 for what follows._

366 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

63. The writ petition, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed.
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 366
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 23.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J.

Writ-A No. 5028 of 2012
And
Other Connected Cases

Aanjaney Tripathi & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
(1) Applicability of the principle of natural justice and principles of audi alteram partem before passing the
impugned order of cancellation of selection process.
(2) Validity of the impugned order of cancellation of entire selection process without making segregation
between tainted and non-tainted candidates.

Headnotes
(A) Service law - Selection and appointment - Cancellation - Principle of natural justice -
Principles of audi alteram partem - Applicability - Post of Principal and Assistant Teacher in
Sanskrit Schools - Selection process was duly held and Committee of management issued
appointment letter - Petitioners were also started payment of salary - However, after time the
DIOS withheld the salary - No show cause notice was issued, no opportunity of hearing was
given, and no enquiry was conducted - Effect - Joint Director, vide impugned order, cancelled
the entire selection process - Validity challenged: (E-1)
Held: It is a settled principle of law that any order having civil consequences must conform to the principles
of audi alteram partem. The impugned order which has resulted in termination of service and deprivation of
salary, has been passed in flagrant violation of such principles and is therefore vitiated in law - The impugned
order dated 25.06.2012 has been passed by the opposite party no. 2 in a wholly arbitrary, illegal manner
without issuing any notice whatsoever and in complete violation of principles of natural justice. The said order
proceeds to cancel the entire selection process without recording any specific finding of irregularities or
manipulation in the selection of the petitioners/ Assistant Teachers, except with respect to three individuals
namely Sri Brijesh Kumar, Ms. Ragini Rai and Sri Ajay Kumar Yadav without any segregation between tainted
and non-tainted candidates. [Para 48 and 50]
(B) Constitution of India - Article 14 - Right to equality - Cancellation of entire selection
process - Failure to make segregation between tainted and non-tainted candidates - Effect: (E1)
Held: No attempt has been made to segregate tainted candidates from untainted candidates, nor has any
finding has been recorded against the petitioners. It is settled law that innocent candidates cannot be
penalized for alleged irregularities of others. The blanket cancellation is thus arbitrary, disproportionate and
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India - To treat the innocent and the wrongdoers equally by
subjecting the former to the consequence of the cancellation of the entire process would be contrary to Article
14 because unequals would then be treated equally. [Para 52]
4 All. Aanjaney Tripathi & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
367
Case Law Cited
State of Assam and others v. Arabinda Rabha and others, (2025) 7 SCC 705 - referred to.

List of Acts
Constitution of India - Article 14 and 21; UP Board of Secondary Sanskrit Education (Appointment and
Conditions of Service of Heads of Institution, Teachers and Other Employees of the Institution) Regulations,
2009 - Regulation 15.

List of Keywords
Procedure for selection, Advertisement, Complaint, Representation, Due publicity, Transparency, Legitimate
and enforceable right, Cancellation of selection, Stoppage of salary, Preliminary enquiry, Issuing the notice,
Opportunity of hearing, Principle of natural justice, Segregation between tainted and non-tainted candidates,
Malpractice, Departmental enquiry, Doctrine of proportionality, Arbitrary, Unreasonable, Withholding of salary,
Severe financial hardship, Authority of law, Unjust, Interpolation, Manipulation, Conclusive adjudication, Mass
irregularity, Forgery, Irrelevancies, Credibility, Legitimacy of the process, Segregation, Principle of audi
alteram partem.

Case Arising From
Impugned order dated 25.06.2012 passed by the Director of Education (Secondary), U.P., Lucknow cancelling
the entire selection process.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant: Amrendra Nath Tripathi (Sr. Adv.), Sanjeev Kumar Mishra, Ajay Pratap Singh, Ms.
Radhika Singh, Sant Prasad Singh, Ms. Richa Mishra.
Advs. for the Respondents: Kuldeep Pati Tripathi (AAG), Kushal Verma (SC).

(Delivered by Hon'ble Irshad Ali, J.)

1. Heard Shri Amrendra Nath Tripathi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Sanjeev
Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms. Radhika Singh, learned Advocate along
with Ms. Richa Mishra, both appearijng for the petitioners and Shri Kuldeep Pati Tripathi, learned
Additional Advocate General assisted by Shri Kushal Verma, learned counsel for the respondentsState.

2. This bunch of writ petitions is being decided by means of a common judgment and order
treating Writ-A No.5028 of 2012 to be leading writ petition and the judgment and order passed
therein, shall be equally applicable to all the connected writ petitions.

3. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:

(I) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari thereby quashing the
impugned order dated 25.6.2012 passed by the Director of Education (Secondary), U.P., Lucknow
(opposite party no.2) contained as Annexure no.1 so far as it relates to the petitioners.

(II) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite
parties not to create hindrance in the functioning of the petitioners on the post of Assistant teacher
in Sanskrit institutions.

(III) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite
parties especially opposite party no.3 (Joint Director of Education, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh)
368 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
to ensure the payment of salary to the petitioners on the post of Assistant Teacher regularly each
and every month along with arrears.

(IV) issue any writ order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper
under the circumstances of the case.

(V) allow the writ petition with costs in favour of the petitioners."

4. Factual matrix of the case is that the State Government issued notification on 15.1.2010 in
respect of the Sanskrit Schools viz. The Uttar Pradesh Board of Secondary Sanskrit Education
(Appointment and Conditions of Service of Heads of Institution, Teachers and Other Employees of
the Institution) Regulations, 2009 in which the procedure for the selection on the post of Assistant
Teacher and Principal/ Headmaster in Sanskrit Schools, has been mentioned.

On 20.9.2011, the vacancy was published in daily newspaper viz. Pioneer by the
Regional Deputy Inspector of Sanskrit Schools regarding the Head of the Institutions. On
27.9.2011, the vacancy was published in the daily newspaper viz. Amgar Ujala by the Regional
Deputy Inspector of Sanskrit Schools regarding the Assistant Teacher of the Institutions.

The petitioners being fully eligible and qualified for the post of Assistant Teacher applied
for the same and also completed all the formalities as required in the advertisement. It is also
submitted that the petitioners appeared in all the selection process and eclared successful for the
selection committee for the post of Assistant Teacher.

On 12.12.2011, the Joint Director of Education, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh issued
panel for the appointment of the petitioners on the post of Assistant Teacher. The appointment
letter was issued in favour of the petitioners by the Manager, Committee of Management by
following the panel issued by the Joint Director of Education, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh. In
pursuance to the appointment letter, the petitioners have reported their joining.

On 26.3.2012, the Director of Education (Secondary), U.P., Lucknow passed an order by
which the salary of the petitioners has been stopped by a common order on the basis of the some
complaints. Feeling aggrieved with the order dated 26.3.2012 passed by the opposite party no.2, the
petitioners approached to this Court by challenging the impugned order dated 26.3.2012 passed by
the Director of Education (Secondary), U.P., Lucknow and this Hon'ble Court pleased to pass
interim order in the aforesaid writ petitions.

On 4.4.2012, one writ petition bearing No. Writ-A No.16645/2012 (Smt. Kiran Gupta
and others v. State of U.P. and others) was filed before this Hon'ble Court at Allahabad and this
Hon'ble Court vide order dated 4.4.2012 directed the Director of Education to decide the
representation of that writ petitions.

On 25.6.2012, by taking shelter of the aforesaid order passed by this Hon'ble Court,
opposite party no.2 cancelled the whole selection process without affording any opportunity of
hearing or show cause notice to the petitioners in most illegal and arbitrary manner.

5. Ms Radhika Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the State Government
issued a notification dated 15.01.2010 (Annexure No.2 at page no.22-36 of writ petition)
introducing the Uttar Pradesh Board of Secondary Sanskrit Education (Appointment and
Conditions of Service of Heads of Institution, Teachers and other Employees of the Institutions)
Regulations, 2009 which governs the procedure for appointment of Assistant Teachers and
Principles in Sanskrit Institution, including the Institutions in question.
4 All. Aanjaney Tripathi & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
369

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners next submitted that in furtherance of the statutory
framework prescribed under the aforesaid Regulations, vacancies relating to the post of Head of
Institution were duly published on 19.09.2011 and 20.09.2011 in the widely circulated daily
newspaper Pioneer by the Regional Deputy Inspector of Sanskrit Schools, thereby inviting
applications from eligible candidates in accordance with the prescribed procedure. The said
publication ensured due publicity and transparency in the selection process and was strictly in
compliance with the mandatory requirements of the applicable Regulations governing such
appointments.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners next submitted that in continuation of the recruitment
process and in strict compliance with the provisions of the applicable Regulations, vacancies for the
post of Assistant Teacher were duly published on 27.9.2011 in the widely circulated daily
newspaper 'Amar Ujala' by the Regional Deputy Inspector of Sanskrit Schools, thereby inviting
applications from eligible candidates. The said advertisement ensured adequate publicity and
transparency and formally initiated the selection process for appointment to the post of Assistant
Teacher in the institutions concerned.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners next submitted that pursuant to the advertisements
issued, the duly constituted Selection Committee conducted the Selection proceedings on
20.11.2011 in strict adherence to the procedure prescribed under the applicable Regulations. The
proceedings of the Selection Committee clearly establish that the entire selection process was
conducted in a fair, transparent and lawful manner, without any arbitrariness, procedural
irregularity or illegality whatsoever, and in complete compliance with the statutory framework
governing such selections.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners next submitted that upon completion of the selection
process, the Joint Director of Education, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh in exercise of his lawful
authority issued the final selection panel dated 12.12.2011 recommending the names of the
petitioners for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher in the respective institutions. The
issuance of the said panel was in conformity with the prescribed statutory procedure and conferred
a legitimate and enforceable right upon the petitioners to be appointed on the said posts.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioners next submitted that in pursuance of the duly approved
selection panel dated 12.12.2011, the respective Committees of Management of the concerned
institutions issued appointment letters on 23.12.2011 in favour of the petitioners, thereby formally
appointing them to the post of Assistant Teacher. The said appointments wee made strictly in
accordance with the applicable Regulations and upon due approval of the competent authority,
thereby conferring valid and lawful status of service upon the petitioners.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioners next submitted that the petitioners joined their
respective posts on 24.12.2011 and commenced discharge of their duties in the institutions
concerned without any interruption or objection from any authority. Upon joining, the petitioners
continuously performed their assigned responsibilities and were regularly paid salary in accordance
with the applicable rules, thereby affirming the validity and subsistence of their appointments.
370 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

12. Learned counsel for the petitioners next submitted that to the utter shock and prejudice of
the petitioners, the Director of Education (Secondary), U.P., Lucknow issued a communication
dated 26.03.2012 whereby on the basis of certain complaints alleging irregularities in the selection
process, the concerned authorities were directed to produce the entire records relating to the
selection and submit a factual report. The said communication merely initiated a preliminary
enquiry and did not contained any finding of illegality or any direction for cancellation of selection
or stoppage of salary. However, despite the limited scope of the said communication, the
subordinate authorities, the District Inspector of Schools proceeded to withhold the salary of the
petitioners without any independent order, without issuing any notice and without affording any
opportunity of hearing, thereby acting arbitrary and beyond the scope of the said communication.
The said action is wholly illegal, without jurisdiction and in gross violation of the principles of
natural justice.

13. Learned counsel for the petitioners next submitted that in a separate matter i.e. Writ-A
No.16645 of 2012 (Smt. Kiran gupta and others v. State of U.P. and others) filed by certain
unselected candidates, challenging advertisement no.6 of 2011 pertaining to the post of Principal
and advertisement no.7 of 2011 pertaining to the post of Assistant Teacher, the Honble Court at
Allahabad vide order dated 04.04.2012 was pleased to dispose of the writ petition with a direction
to the Director of Education (Secondary), U.P., Allahabad to consider and decide the representation
of the petitioners therein by passing a reasoned and speaking order.

14. Learned counsel for the petitioners next submitted that the aforesaid order was limited in
scope and merely required consideration of the grievance of the petitioners therein at the
departmental level. The said order neither authorized the cancellation of the entire selection process
nor permitted dispensing with the mandatory requirement of affording opportunity of hearing to the
affected candidates. However, the said order has subsequently been misinterpreted and wrongly
relied upon by the authorities while passing the impugned order dated 25.06.2012.

15. Learned counsel for the petitioners next submitted that being aggrieved by the action of the
respondents and communication letter dated 26.03.2012 issued by the Director of Education
(Secondary), U.P., Lucknow, the petitioners approached the Hon'ble Court by filing several writ
petitions including Writ Petition No.2744(S/S) of 2012. The Hon'ble Court vide order dated
29.05.2012 after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, was pleased to issue notice
and grant interim protection to the petitioner by extending the benefit of order passed in Priyanka
Singh v. State of U.P. and others. The Hon'ble Court observed that in the absence of any specific
order against individual candidates the payment of salary could not be withheld merely on the basis
of a general direction and accordingly directed that the petitioners shall be entitled to receive salary
during the pendency of the proceedings subject to further orders.

16. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submitted that impugned order dated 25.06.2012
has been passed by respondent no.2 in wholly arbitrary, illegal and high-handed manner, without
issuing any notice whatsoever and in complete violation of the principles of natural justice. The aid
order proceeds to cancel the entire selection process without recording any specific finding of
irregularity or manipulation in the selection of the petitioners/ Assistant Teachers, except with
respect to three individuals namely Sri Brijesh Kumar, Ms.Ragini Rai and Sri Ajay Kumar Yadav
4 All. Aanjaney Tripathi & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
371
in a connected matter. Despite this, the respondent has mechanically cancelled the entire selection
of Assistant Teachers not only in Azamgarh Division but also in other divisions, namely Faizabad,
Devipatan, Gorakhpur and Basti, thereby visiting all selected candidates with the consequences of
alleged irregularities pertaining to a few individuals, without any segregation between tainted and
non-tainted candidates.

17. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submitted that the advertisements for the posts of
Principal and Assistant Teacher were separate and independent and the petitioners being duly
selected candidates cannot be treated at par with any alleged irregularities. Even as per the findings
of the Hon'ble High Court, the alleged malpractices were confined exclusively to the selection of
Principals and had no application whatsoever to the selection of Assistant Teachers.

18. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that the Director has clearly unsurped
powers under the garb of Regulation 15 of the U.P. Board of Secondary Sanskrit Education
(Appointment and Conditions of Service of Heads of Institution, Teachers and Other Employees of
the Institution) Regulations, 2009 which does not confer authority to cancel a completed selection
after appointments have been made and candidates have joined their duties. The services of the
petitioners, having already crystallized, could not have been terminated except in accordance with
the procedure prescribed under Chapter VI of the said Regulations.

19. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submitted that the power to impose punishment,
including termination or dismissal, vests only with the Regional Joint Director of Education under
Regulation 53, wheres the Director (opposite party no.3) functions merely as an Appellate
Authority. However, in the present case, the Director has illegally assumed the role of disciplinary
authority and has passed the impugned order without conducting any departmental enquiry, without
issuing any chargesheet and without affording any opportunity of hearing, rendering the impugned
action wholly without jurisdiction, arbitrary and liable to be set aside.

20. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submitted that the respondents have failed to
maintain any distinction or segregation between tainted and untained candidates and have further
not adhered to the established principles of the doctrine of proportionality as well as the
Doonesbury principle. Had the respondents followed the procedure and guidelines laid down by the
Apex Court, the impugned selection process would not have suffered from such infirmities.

21. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submitted that the respondents, by no stretch of
imagination, can justify their actions by placing reliance upon advertisement no.6 of 2011 which
pertains to the appointment of Principals. The said advertisement was subjected to judicial scrutiny
and was held questionable vide order dated 25.10.2013 passed by the Honble Court. However, it
is pertinent to note that the Hon'ble High Court, in its findings, only observed the presence of
overwriting in the examination process relating to the post of Principals.

22. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submitted that most importantly, with regard to the
post of Assistant Teachers, no questions were raised, nor were any discrepancies found or recorded
by the Hon'ble High Court. Therefore, the advertisement relating to the post of Assistant Teachers
could not have been cancelled on the basis of the aforesaid order, which was confined only to the
372 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
post of Principal. Consequently, the respondents cannot rely upon the said order to justify the
irregularities in the present selection process, which is otherwise arbitrary, unreasonable and
unsustainable in the eyes of law.

23. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submitted that in view of the settled position of
law, the impugned order dated 25.06.2012 which proceeds to cancel the entire selection of
Assistant Teachers without any segregation without any finding against the petitioners and without
affording any opportunity of hearing ex facie arbitrary illegal and liable to be set aside.

24. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submitted that as a direct and inevitable
consequence of the impugned order dated 25.06.2012 the petitioners have been illegally deprived
of their service rights, inasmuch as their services stood effectively terminated without any lawful
order of termination or adherence to due process of law. Despite the same, the petitioners have
continuously been discharging their duties in the respective institutions and their services are being
taken by the authorities till date without payment of salary. The withholding of salary, despite
extraction of work, amounts to gross exploitation and is wholly arbitrary and unjust.

25. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submitted that the salaries of the petitioners have
been arbitrarily withheld causing severe financial hardship and grave prejudice not only to the
petitioners but also to their families. The said action of the respondents is violative of Articles 14
and 21 of the Constitution of India, as it deprives the petitioners of their livelihood without
authority of law and compels them to work without remuneration which is impermissible in law.

26. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submitted that the entire sequence of events, as
narrated hereinabove, unequivocally establishes that the petitioners were duly selected and
appointed through a fair, transparent and lawful process strictly in accordance with the governing
statutory Regulations, and had validly joined and commenced their services. However, despite such
lawful appointment, the petitioners have been arbitrarily and illegally deprived of their service and
salary by virtue of the impugned order dated 25.06.2012 which has been passed in gross violation
of the principles of natural justice, without issuance of any notice, without affording any
opportunity of hearing and without conducting any enquiry whatsoever. The said action of the
respondents is thus wholly unjust, without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside by the Hon'ble
Court.

27. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submitted that the impugned order dated
25.06.2012 was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court by two distinct sets of candidates,
namely those selected on the post of Principal before the Allahabad High Court and those selected
on the post of Assistant Teacher, including the petitioners herein before the Lucknow Bench. The
Hon'ble Allahabad Bench in Writ-A No.45441 of 2012 vide judgment dated 18.01.2013 dismissed
the writ petitions filed by candidates selected on the post of Principal.

However, a careful perusal of the said judgment clearly demonstrates that the entire
controversy before the Hon'ble Court was confined exclusively to the selection and appointment on
the post of Principal and the adjudication was undertaken only with respect to the selection process
of Principals.
4 All. Aanjaney Tripathi & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
373

The Hon'ble Court, after summoning and examining the original records, recorded
findings regarding alleged interpolation and manipulation in the marks awarded to candidates for
the post of Principal, as reflected in the detailed charts forming part of the judgment.

Importantly, there is no finding whatsoever recorded in the said judgment in relation to
the selection of Assistant Techers under consideration before the Hon'ble Court. As such, the
findings returned in the judgment dated 18.01.2013 are confined only to the selection of Principals
and cannot, in any manner, be extended or applied to the independent and distinct selection process
of Assistant Teachers, including that of the petitioners herein.

28. Learned counsel for the petitioners next submitted that both the aforesaid Special Appeals
arose out of and were confined exclusively to the dispute relating to the selection and appointment
on the post of Principal and the adjudication therein was limited only to the issues concerning the
selection process of Principals. The Hon'ble Division Bench, while dismissing the appeals, did not
examine or adjudicate upon the selection process of Assistant Teachers and the finding recorded
therein pertaijn solely to the alleged irregularities in the selection of Principals. Accordingly, the
said judgments are clearly distinguishable on facts and law and cannot be applied to the
independent and distinct selection process of Assistant Teachers, including that of the petitioners
herein.

29. Learned counsel for the petitioners next submitted that the entire adjudication undertaken
by the Hon'ble Division Bench was confined only to the selection process of Principals, and the
findings recorded therein are exclusively in relation to the alleged irregularities in the selection of
Principals. No finding whatsoever has been recorded in respect of the independent and distinct
selection process of Assistant Techers, including that of the petitioners herein and therefore, the
said judgment cannot be applied to the present case.

30. Learned counsel for the petitioners next submitted that the Hon'ble Court did not
independently adjudicate upon or examine the selection process of Assistant Teachers, but
dismissed the writ petitions primarily on the basis of the findings recorded by the Allahabad Bench
in respect of the selection of Principals. Therefore, the said judgment cannot be treated as a
conclusive adjudication on the independent and distinct selection process of Assistant Teachers,
including that of the petitioners herein.

31. Learned counsel for the petitioners next submitted that the aforesaid proceedings before
the Hon'ble Supreme Court arose out of and were confined to the dispute relating to the selection
on the post of Principal, and the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition was ijn the context of
findings recorded with respect to the selection of Principals alone. No adjudication whatsoever has
been undertaken in respect of the independent and distinct selection process of Assistant Teachers,
including that of the petitioners herein and therefore, the said has no application to the present case.

32. In support of her submission, learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon the
judgment in the case of State of Assam and others v. Arabinda Rabha and others reported in
(2025)7 Supreme Court Cases 705.
374 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

33. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that there was only one
Selection Committee for both posts that is of Principal and Assistant Teacher. The plea of two
Selection Committee is after-thought of the petitioners.

34. Learned AAG next submitted that Hon'ble Single Judge deciding the Writ-A No.45441 of
2012 and Writ-A No.47323 of 2012 had examined the entire record which was one record relating
to selection of Principal as well as of Assistant Teacher and found cutting in the marks awarded by
the Members of the Selection Committee to give favour to some.

35. Learned AAG next submitted that the plea of the petitioners that the cancellation of their
selection is in violation to Chapter 6 of the Regulations 2009 is not tenable for the reason that the
entire selection is quashed under Regulation 15 of the Regulation, 2009 and it is not the case of
punishment etc. where the provisions of Chapter 6 of the Regulations, 2009 are applicable.

36. Learned AAG next submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court in re: Krishna Yadav v. State of
Haryana reported in (1994)4 SCC 165 had held that records of selection was destroyed. On the
background the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that it is not possible to decide the case one way
or other so the Hon'ble Supreme Court proceeded to decide the case on the basis of the CBI Report.

37. Learned AAG next submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court came to the conclusion that
there was mass irregularity and forgery in selection. Hence, the Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside
the entire selection and yet further held that the effect of the setting aside the selection process is
that the persons so selected would be required to disgorge the benefit of ill gotten gains.

38. Having heard the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the
material available on record as well as case-law cited by learned counsel for the petitioners.

39. To resolve the controversy involved in the present writ petition, operative portion of
judgment rendered in the case of Arabinda Rabha (supra) relied upon by learned counsel for the
petitioner is extracted here-in-below:

"53. There were no serious grievances of malpractices in Rajesh P.U.. In fact, this Court
held that:

"6. ... Applying a unilaterally rigid and arbitrary standard to cancel the entirety of the
selections despite the firm and positive information that except 31 of such selected candidates, no
infirmity could be found with reference to others, is nothing but total disregard of relevancies and
allowing to be carried away by irrelevancies, giving a complete go-by to contextual considerations
throwing to the winds the principle of proportionality in going farther than what was strictly and
reasonably to meet the situation."

 (emphasis supplied)

It was concluded that:

"6. .... the competent authority completely misdirected itself in taking such an extreme
and unreasonable decision of cancelling the entire selections, wholly unwarranted and
unnecessary even on the factual situation found too, and totally in excess of the nature and gravity
4 All. Aanjaney Tripathi & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
375
of what was at stake, thereby virtually rendering such decision to be irrational." (emphasis
supplied)

54. Para 35 of the decision in Sachin Kumar has been relied on. There, this Court held
that:

"35. In deciding this batch of SLPs, we need not reinvent the wheel. Over the last five
decades, several decisions of this Court have dealt with the fundamental issue of when the process
of an examination can stand vitiated. Essentially, the answer to the issue turns upon whether the
irregularities in the process have taken place at a systemic level so as to vitiate the sanctity of the
process. There are cases which border upon or cross over into the domain of fraud as a result of
which the credibility and legitimacy of the process is denuded. This constitutes one end of the
spectrum where the authority conducting the examination or convening the selection process comes
to the conclusion that as a result of supervening event or circumstances, the process has lost its
legitimacy, leaving no option but to cancel it in its entirety. Where a decision along those lines is
taken, it does not turn upon a fact-finding exercise into individual acts involving the use of
malpractices or unfair means. Where a recourse to unfair means has taken place on a systemic
scale, it may be difficult to segregate the tainted from the untainted participants in the process.
Large-scale irregularities including those which have the effect of denying equal access to
similarly circumstanced candidates are suggestive of a malaise which has eroded the credibility of
the process. At the other end of the spectrum are cases where some of the participants in the
process who appear at the examination or selection test are guilty of irregularities. In such a case,
it may well be possible to segregate persons who are guilty of wrongdoing from others who have
adhered to the rules and to exclude the former from the process. In such a case, those who are
innocent of wrongdoing should not pay a price for those who are actually found to be involved in
irregularities. By segregating the wrongdoers, the selection of the untainted candidates can be
allowed to pass muster by taking the selection process to its logical conclusion. This is not a mere
matter of administrative procedure but as a principle of service jurisprudence it finds embodiment
in the constitutional duty by which public bodies have to act fairly and reasonably. A fair and
reasonable process of selection to posts subject to the norm of equality of opportunity under Article
16(1) is a constitutional requirement. A fair and reasonable process is a fundamental requirement
of Article 14 as well. Where the recruitment to public employment stands vitiated as a consequence
of systemic fraud or irregularities, the entire process becomes illegitimate. On the other hand,
where it is possible to segregate persons who have indulged in malpractices and to penalise them
for their wrongdoing, it would be unfair to impose the burden of their wrongdoing on those who
are free from taint. To treat the innocent and the wrongdoers equally by subjecting the former to
the consequence of the cancellation of the entire process would be contrary to Article 14 because
unequals would then be treated equally. The requirement that a public body must act in fair and
reasonable terms animates the entire process of selection. The decisions of the recruiting body are
hence subject to judicial control subject to the settled principle that the recruiting authority must
have a measure of discretion to take decisions in accordance with law which are best suited to
preserve the sanctity of the process. Now it is in the backdrop of these principles, that it becomes
appropriate to advert to the precedents of this Court which hold the field."
(emphasis supplied)

55. What follows from the above is that each case has to be decided on its own peculiar
facts. It has to be pleaded and proved to the satisfaction of the Court that the decision of the
recruiting authority (to cancel the entire process because of wrongdoing by some tainted elements
376 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and not save a part of the process, to the extent it could be saved, to the utter detriment of the
interests of the innocent) is wholly disproportionate to the risk and overly severe relative to what is
at stake, thereby virtually rendering such decision to be irrational.

56. Based on what has been discussed in the paragraphs preceding consideration of the
authorities cited by Mr Goswami, the appellants' decision in cancelling the entire selection process
initiated vide the advertisement dated 23-7-2014 relying on the note of the PCCF dated 4-7-2016,
and not part of it, in our considered opinion, does not seem to be either arbitrary or unreasonable
or without any sense of proportion. Since the earlier process did border on fraud, in the light of the
reservation policy not being respected and observance of the decisions of this Court (that
meritorious reserved category candidates are entitled to be accommodated in the open category) in
breach, there was a brazen violation which was sought to be corrected and, if we may say,
justifiably so. It has not been proved to our satisfaction that the impugned decision of cancelling
the select list is the neat result of an injudicious exercise of discretion and was ill-directed in the
guise of achieving the sanctity of the entire selection process.

57. The broad issue and Issue (a) (see para 20.1) are, thus, answered in favour of the
appellants by holding that the impugned decision of cancellation was neither unjustified nor was
one which could be upset by applying the doctrines of either Wednesbury [Associated Provincial
Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corpn., (1948) 1 KB 223 (CA)] unreasonableness or
proportionality.

58. Since we find Question (b) (see para 20.2) to be a question of frequent occurrence
engaging the courts of law, it is considered fruitful to take it up for an answer now. It has been
argued that by dint of mere empanelment/enlistment of an aspirant's name for filling up a public
post, no right accrues in favour of such an aspirant to move the writ court for redress. We do not
consider that an empanelled or a selected candidate has absolutely no right to move the writ court.

59. We are conscious of the line of decisions of this Court and have noted some of them
here, which lay down the law that mere empanelment/enlistment does not result in accrual of any
indefeasible right in favour of such empanelled/selected candidate as well as the law that the
employer may, in its wisdom, either decide to cancel the select list or not carry on the process
further resulting in the notified/advertised vacancy/vacancies not being filled up pursuant to the
selection process, which has been conducted. What it means is that an empanelled/selected
candidate can claim no right of appointment, if the State has cogent and germane grounds for not
making the appointment. However, at the same time, it is also the law that the appointing authority
cannot ignore the select panel or decline to make the appointment on its whims. Shankarsan Dash
cautions that the State has no licence to act in an arbitrary manner. In R.S. Mittal v. Union of
India, a coordinate Bench held that when a person has been selected by the Selection Board and
there is a vacancy which can be offered to him, keeping in view his merit position, then, ordinarily,
there is no justification to ignore him for appointment and that there has to be a justifiable reason
to decline to appoint a person who is on the select panel. The position in law finds reiteration in a
decision of recent origin in Dinesh Kumar Kashyap v. South East Central Railway, where the
majority held that the employer must give cogent reasons for not appointing selected candidates."

40. Perusal of the above-extracted judgments shows that apply a unilaterally standard to cancel
the entirety of the selections despite the firm and positive information that no infirmity could be
found with reference to others is nothing but total disregard of irrelevancies and allowing to be
carried away by irrelevancies, giving a complete go-by to contextual considerations throwing to the
4 All. Aanjaney Tripathi & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
377
winds the principle of proportionality in going farther than what was strictly and reasosnably to
meet the situation.

41. It also shows that there are cases which border upon or cross over into the domain of fraud
as a result of which the credibility and legitimacy of the process is denuded.