( 1 ) RULE DB. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing.

( 2 ) PURSUANT to an advertisement published in June, 2004, the petitioners filled up their forms for recruitment of 1435 vacancies to the post of constables in BSF from the States of Delhi, UP and Uttaranchal. The petitioners cleared the written test, interview, physical test and the medical examination and were given reporting letters on the basis of their selection. It appears that thereafter the petitioners were told not to continue their stay in the BSF unit where they had reported because of the apparent view taken by the respondents that the petitioners did not fulfill the conditions as stipulated in the reporting letters. The only cause why the petitioners are said to be not qualified according to the respondents is that they do not have certificate of hill area which was given in the letters selecting the petitioners, which certificate was a sine qua non of the selection of the petitioners.

( 3 ) THE main plea of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners exclusion from the unit which prevented them from deriving the benefit of the selection, was done without any semblance of any show cause notice to the petitioners in complete violation of the principles of natural justice and the petitioners, who had produced certificates were not given any opportunity to establish the authenticity/efficacy of such certificates and the certificates were ruled out by the respondents without just cause.

( 4 ) IN T. C. Bassappa v. T. Nagappa AIR 1954 SC 440 the Hon ble Supreme court laid down that certiorari is granted when the Court has acted without jurisdiction or in excess of its jurisdiction. It was also held that a writ of certiorari may also be issued if the Court or Tribunal acted in flagrant disregard of the rules or procedure or in violation of principles of natural justice where no particular procedure is prescribed. It has also been held that an error in the decision or determination may also be amenable to a writ of certiorari subject to the fact that the error is manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings i. e. when it is based on clear ignorance or disregard of the provisions of law but a mere wrong decision is not amenable to a writ of certiorari.

( 5 ) IN the Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in custodian of Evacuee Property vs. Khan Saheb Abdul Shukoor AIR 1961 SC 1087, the following principles were laid down :-" (1) Certiorari will be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction. (2) Certiorari will also be issued when the court or tribunal acts illegally in the exercise of its undoubted jurisdiction as when it decides without giving an opportunity to the parties to be heard, or violates the principles of natural justice. (3) The court issuing a writ of certiorari acts in exercise of a supervisory and not appellate jurisdiction. One consequence of this is that the court will not review findings of fact reached by the inferior court or tribunal, even if they be erroneous. (4) An error in the decision or determination itself may also be amenable to a writ of certiorari if it is a manifest error apparent on the face of the proceedings, e. g. , when it is based on clear ignorance or disregard of the provisions of law. In other words, it is patent error, which can be corrected by certiorari but not a mere wrong decision. "

( 6 ) IN Syed Yakoob vs. K. S. Radhkrishnan, AIR 1964 SC 477 it was held that when a question is decided without giving opportunity of hearing to a party affected, a writ of certiorari can be granted. Similarly in Harbans Lal vs. Jagmohan Saran, (1985) 4 SCC 333 it was held that certiorari shall issue if there is any breach of principles of natural justice.

( 7 ) WE are of the view that the plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner in so far as the lack of opportunity to the petitioners is justified. Even if th