1. Delivery of judgment on this writ petition has been sufficiently delayed, but not without a cause. In course of hearing, my attention was drawn by Mr. Chakraborty, learned advocate for the respondents 9 to 12 (hereafter the private respondents) to a decision of the Supreme Court reported in (2012) 8 SCC 748 (Jainendra Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.). A Division Bench of two Hon’ble Judges of the Supreme Court considered 13 (thirteen) previous decisions, and expressed the view that the question of application of different yardsticks in the matter of grant of relief to candidates who have deliberately suppressed information at the time of recruitment ought to be dealt with by a larger Bench of the Supreme Court. With that in view, the matter (a civil appeal) was referred for consideration by a larger Bench. The judgment on this writ petition was kept pending, awaiting a decision on the reference. However, to the best of my knowledge, the reference is yet to be decided. I, thus, propose to decide the writ petition considering the authorities that have been cited before me.

2. Pursuant to an advertisement published on July 14, 2006, the 5 (five) petitioners had offered their candidature for recruitment as anganwadi workers. They were not successful in securing offers of appointment. The private respondents, who had also offered their candidature, were selected and offered appointment. It is not in dispute that the private respondents are continuing to discharge the duties and functions of anganwadi workers for over half a decade.

3. Once the petitioners were not selected, they started making enquiries and in due course of time came to learn that the private respondents had been considered for selection and consequent appointment despite not being eligible in terms of the advertisement to offer their candidature for appointment as anganwadi workers. Seized with such information, the petitioners approached the official respondents to take appropriate action against the private respondents including termination of their services but no positive action yielded. Alleging that the private respondents are the beneficiaries of a tainted selection process, which despite being brought to the notice of the official respondents failed to activate them to act in accordance with law, this writ petition was presented on April 3, 2013 seeking inter alia orders on the official respondents to cancel and/or rescind the panel prepared for recruitment of anganwadi workers, to terminate the services of the private respondents, and to recast the panel with the eligible candidates and to appoint the most suitable candidate therefrom.

4. An affidavit-in-opposition to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the respondent no. 8, i.e. the Child Development Project Officer of Budge Budge – II, ICDS Project (hereafter the CDPO). Apart from referring to the selection of the private respondents and non-selection of the petitioners pursuant to the advertisement dated July 14, 2006, it is the pleaded case that after receipt of complaints from the petitioners, various letters dated November 6, 2009, February 28, 2011 and March 24, 2011 were sent to the Principals of Budge Budge College and Maheshtala College to ascertain the actual educational qualifications of 10 (ten) candidates (including the private respondents) but no response was received. It is also pleaded that notices were issued to all the 10 (ten) candidates including the private respondents vide Memo dated October 3, 2009 calling upon them to submit documents disclosing their actual educational qualifications. Further notices dated April 7, 2011 were issued to all the 10 (ten) candidates including the private respondents requesting them to submit an affidavit in the enclosed format (to be affirmed before the executive magistrate) in regard to their actual educational qualifications and that despite receiving such notices together with a format of the affidavit, the private r