Hon’ble Sabhajeet Yadav, J.—By this petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 8.2.2008 (Annexure-4 of the writ petition) passed by Superintending Engineer, Nalkoop Mandal Basti (respondent No. 4), whereby selection dated 25.1.2008 on the post of Nalkoop Mistri against backlog vacancies of Group C posts was cancelled.

2. The brief facts leading to the case are that initially backlog vacancies of Group C posts of Nalkoop Mistry of Basti Tube-well Circle were advertised on 13.8.2007. In pursuance of which the Selection Committee had held interview on 17.11.2007 and 18.11.2007 but the aforesaid selection was cancelled on 20.11.2007 by the Superintending Engineer Tube-well Circle, Basti. On the same day the aforesaid backlog vacancies were again advertised and the petitioners were selected by the Selection Committee. The select list was approved by competent authority respondent No. 4 himself. Thereafter he had sent the said select list vide office order dated 25.1.2008 for joining the petitioners on the posts shown in the select list against their names to the office of Executive Engineer, Nalkoop Division, Basti. The advertisement dated 20.11.2007 and office order dated 25.1.2008 containing the names of the selected candidates sent to the office of Executive Engineer, Nalkoop Division, Basti are on record as Annexures-2 and 3 of the writ petition. However, before appointment letters were issued by the respondent No. 5 to the petitioners in pursuance of direction of Superintending Engineer dated 25th January, 2008, he himself has cancelled the said selection and select list dated 25.1.2008 without disclosing any reason therefor merely stating therein that the selection has been cancelled for inevitable reasons. The order of respondent No. 4 dated 8th February, 2008 is on record as Annexure-4 of the writ petition. Feeling aggrieved against which the petitioners have filed the instant writ petition.

3. Heard Sri D.S.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri K.R. Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that since the impugned order passed by the respondent No. 4 does not disclose any reason therefor, hence in given facts and circumstances of the case the impugned order is wholly arbitrary, illegal and is not sustainable in the eye of law. Further submission of the learned counsel for petitioners is that once the selection of Nalkoop Mistry was approved by the Respondent No. 4 himself vide office order dated 25.1.2008 and he himself had directed the Executive Engineer respondent No. 5 to issue appointment letters to the selected candidates/the petitioners, in that eventuality the Respondent No. 4 himself could not cancel the said selection without any material on record and without any justification therefor but from the perusal of counter affidavits filed by the respondents it is clear that there was no material before the respondent No. 4 on the basis of which he could arrive at a such conclusion which could justify the cancellation of said selection. The mere complaint of Member of Parliament and any unsuccessful candidate that the selection was vitiated on account of mal-practice in said selection without any material in support thereof and without any inquiry thereon to substantiate the said complaints the selection in question and pursuant select list could not be cancelled.

5. Besides this, learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that the irregularity pointed out by the respondents that the selection was held in violation of certain rules of recruitment cannot be held to be sufficient ground for vitiating the entire selection unless on account of violation of alleged rules of recruitment the selection in question is otherwise found to be tainted by any malpractice. In support of his aforesaid submissions he has placed reliance upon a decision of this Court rendered in Ram Prakash Singh and others v. State of U