The main legal point established in the judgment is that alleged irregularities in the examination process must be substantial to vitiate the examination, and the applicability of Government Orders to reservation in appointments must be in accordance with relevant Rules and constitutional provisions.

( 1 ) ALL the respondents in these writ petitions are represented by Standing Counsel and Shri sudhir Agrawal, advocate. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been filed in some of these petitions. As agreed at the Bar, writ petition filed by Kumari Archana Mehta is treated as leading case. All the counsel, representing respective parties agreed to argue their cases on the basis of pleadings already on record and further that all these cases be decided finally at admission stage as contemplated under Rules of Court.

( 2 ) selection process adopted by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad for making appointment on certain posts of Typist and Routine Grade Assistant under Allahabad High Court officers and Staff (Condition of Service and Conduct) Rules, 1976 (called the rules, 1976) is being challenged by means of these writ petitions under Article 226, Constitution of India. The process of selection is, however, still midway and yet to be completed.

( 3 ) THE undisputed facts, for the purposes of deciding these cases, are that the High Court issued an advertisement, which was published in Daily Newspaper on 5th November, 1989. Relevant extract of the advertisement in question has been annexed as Annexure-2 to the leading petition. Applications were invited from eligible candidates to appear in an examination for filling up 135 vacant posts of Typists/routine Grade Clerks. Total 38,479 application forms were received. Applications of 37,214 candidates were cleared, out of which 28. 694 candidates appeared in the said examination from different fifty-two centres. All examiners were called at one place. Answer books were got evaluated between 19th to 23rd February 2001, by more than hundred examiners each day under supervision of personnels deputed by Controller of Examination appointed by examination Committee, headed by a sitting Judge of the High Court.

( 4 ) SYSTEM of coding-decoding of Roll Numbers on answer-books was avoided to overcome procedural delay. Steps were, however, taken to ensure secrecy and complete sanctity of the written examination--a partial phase of the selection process.

( 5 ) SHRI V. K. Agrawal, Professor. M. L. N. R. Engineering College, Allahabad, an independent person, was appointed Controller of Examination. The examiners, on perusal of original record reveals. were invited from various educational institutions and a University. Written examination result, containing names of 818 candidates, was published in newspaper (Annexure-1 to the leading petition ).

( 6 ) AFORESAID examination procedure is sought to be assailed by the petitioners on following two counts only : first, the examination process is vitiated due to irregularities, namely :

(a) failure to codify roll numbers. (b) certain candidates declared successful in written examination are from same locality, and (c) roll numbers of some of the successful candidates are in a sequence, i. e. , in chronological order.

( 7 ) THE petitioners urged upon this Court to infer from the above circumstances that it was not possible to declare written examination result within a few days considering large number of candidates (Paras 13 and 14 of the leading petition ). According to the petitioner, there has been great haste in declaring written examination result, which reflects ulterior motive and impinges upon the sanctity of the written examination. The allegations relating to the exercise of examination and its not being fairly conducted in the above context, e. g. , evaluation of answer-books in a few days, giving go-bye to mode of coding, model answers not distributed, etc. (Paras 17 to 19 of leading petition), are vague and evasive. Pleading is incomplete and without full particulars. Petitioners counsel did not seriously press this point and also finally abandoned the point.

( 8 ) MOREOVER, no circular/ guideline or rule requiring coding/ decoding of the answer-books has been brought to the notice of the Court.

( 9 ) CIRCUMSTANCES, e.