The main legal point established in the judgment is that in cases of cancellation of appointments due to irregularities in the entire selection process, individual notice to the selected candidates is not necessarily required, and the decision to cancel appointments must be based on valid reasons.

Ashok Bhushan, J.—This special appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 20th May, 2003 of a learned Judge by which Writ Petition No. 1815 of 2003 filed by the appellants challenging the order dated 3rd January, 2003 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Adminis-tration), Trade Tax, Aligarh has been dismissed.

2. Facts giving rise to this appeal, briefly stated, are ; Assistant Commissioner (Administration), Trade Tax, Aligarh issued an advertisement inviting applications for filling up seven backlog vacancies of class IV from amongst scheduled caste candidates. In response to advertisement 3559 applications were received, 2209 candidates were called for interview including the appellants. The selection committee was headed by one Sri B. D. Upadhyaya, Assistant Commissioner/Appointing Authority along with three other members. The appointment orders dated 23rd September, 2002 were issued to the appellants offering temporary appointment. In pursuance of the appointment orders, the appellant Nos. 1, 2 and 4 to 7 submitted their joining on 24th September, 2002 whereas appellant No. 3 submitted his joining on 10th December, 2002. Serious complaints were received regarding selection proceedings, which were enquired by the department. The Deputy Commissioner, Trade Tax immediately after selection asked for comments from members of the selection committee and intimated the same to the higher authorities of the department. The Commissioner, Trade Tax, U. P., Lucknow also sought permission of the State Government to cancel the appointment proceedings. A review selection committee was also convened on 2nd January, 2003 for reconsidering the selection process and the appointments. The members of the review selection committee after examining the records were satisfied that irregularities have been committed in selection process and recommended for cancelling of all the seven appointments recommended between 18th September, 2002 to 23rd September, 2002. After receiving the recommendation of the review selection committee dated 2nd January, 2003 the selection and consequential appointments were cancelled vide order dated 3rd January, 2003. The writ petition was filed by the appellants challenging the said order dated 3rd January, 2003 which was dismissed vide judgment dated 20th May, 2003 against which present special appeal has been filed.

3. Dr. R. G. Padia, senior advocate, appearing for the appellants raised following submissions in support of the appeal :

“(i) The appellants having joined in pursuance of selection, they were entitled for notice and opportunity before cancellation of their appointments ; the order dated 3rd January, 2003 cancelling the appointment of appellants having been passed without notice and opportunity, is liable to be set aside. The learned single Judge erred in holding that no opportunity was necessary in the facts of the present case. Judgment in Union of India and others v. O. Chakradhar, 2002 (2) AWC 1264 (SC) : (2002) 3 SCC 146, relied by learned Judge was not attracted in the facts of the present case since in the above case the select list was cancelled after the report of C.B.I.

(ii) The State Government vide its order dated 20th December, 2002 (Annexure-6 to the affidavit filed in support of stay application) gave its approval to cancel the appointment by giving only one reason. The State Government having given only one reason in its order dated 20th December, 2002, i.e., the appointments were made without preparation of merit list, it was not open to the Deputy Commissioner to give other reasons for cancellation of the appointments.”

4. The counsel for the appellants placed reliance on several judgments of the Apex Court and this Court in support of the above submissions, which shall be referred to while considering the submissions in detail.

5. Sri Ranvijai Singh, learned standing counsel, appearing for the respondents, supported the judgment of learned single Judge and submitted t