Randir Nandan Etc. Vs. State of Bihar and ors. Etc - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
constitution of india - articles 226 and 227--service--appointment to the post of assistant executive engineer in electricity board--examination and interview--rules and instructions issued by respondents in regard to conduct of examination--petitioner misconducted themselves by sitting in room no. 12 of the examination centre instead of room allotted to them--large scale unfair means a adopted by examinees--held, petitioners hare rightly been disqualified from consideration--no discretionary relief can be granted to petitioners due to their conduct--(service--appointment and examination--unfair means disqualification). - - the petitioner fared well at the examination and expected to be called for interview. the number of candidates to sit in each room has been clearly mentioned as also..... b.p. singh, j. 1. in this batch of writ applications the petitioners have prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ or direction directing the respondents to call the petitioners for interview and for consideration of their cases for appointment to the post of assistant executive engineer (g.t.o. cadre) in the bihar state electricity board. the petitioners have also challenged the qualifications and the requirements laid down in the advertisement for selection to the aforesaid post contending inter alia that the decision of board to award 30 marks for the viva voce test was unreasonable, and further that awarding of maximum of 30 marks for educational qualification was also unreasonable in view of the fact that a written test was being held for judging their relative merit. the writ.....

Judgment:

B.P. Singh, J.

1. In this batch of writ applications the petitioners have prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ or direction directing the respondents to call the petitioners for interview and for consideration of their cases for appointment to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer (G.T.O. cadre) in the Bihar State Electricity Board. The petitioners have also challenged the qualifications and the requirements laid down in the advertisement for selection to the aforesaid post contending inter alia that the decision of Board to award 30 marks for the viva voce test was unreasonable, and further that awarding of maximum of 30 marks for educational qualification was also unreasonable in view of the fact that a written test was being held for judging their relative merit. The writ petitions were filed at a stage when the petitioners had not been called for interview and the appointments had yet to be made. Subsequently, the writ petitions were amended when the petitioners were informed that they were disqualified from consideration for appointment as Assistant Executive Engineer in view of the fact that they had violated the rules and procedure laid down for the conduct of the competitive examination. Since all the petitions raise similar questions and arise in the same factual background, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. The representative facts are taken from C.W.J.C. 1441 of 1991.

2. The case of the petitioner as set out in the writ petition is that he had obtained a degree of Bachelor of Engineering and had consistently a brilliant academic record. Employment Notice 4/89 was notified by the respondent Bihar State Electricity Board inviting applications in the prescribed form from eligible candidates for different posts including the post of Assistant Executive Engineer (G.T.O. cadre) meaning thereby Graduate Training Officer cadre. Since the petitioner was qualified for appointment as Assistant Executive Engineer (G.T.O. cadre) he applied for the same. For this post, one of the qualifications laid down was that the candidate should not be below 21 years of age and not above 42 years, and in the case of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates not above the age of 47 years. Having regard to the age qualification, even those persons who had graduated in engineering way back in the years 1968, 1969 and 1970 may have been eligible to apply. The Board also passed are solution laying down that out of maximum 100 marks, a minimum of 40 marks shall be awarded for the written rest, maximum of 30 marks for performance in the qualifying degree/diploma examination and maximum of 30 marks for viva voce test. This was despite the fact that the Government in the Department of Energy had taken a decision that where written examination was prescribed, it would not be desirable and proper to award marks on the basis of educational qualification. A direction was, therefore, issued to the Board in exercise of power under Section 78A of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948 not to award marks for the educational qualification. The Government took a decision that maximum 60 marks should be awarded for the written examination and maximum of 40 marks for the viva voce test This decision of the Government has been annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. The Board, however, did not follow the directive of the State Government and reiterated its decision that it was not possible to award 60 marks for the written test and 40 marks for the interview.

3. Pursuant to the application made by the petitioner, he was issued an admit card for taking the examination and was given Roll No. 2116. The written examination was to be held on October 7, 1990, and the center at which the petitioner was required to write the examination was the Patna College at Patna. According to the petitioner, he went to the examination centre on October 7, 1990 and found that the sitting arrangement for the examination was notified in a big chart pasted in front of the main office of the College. His Roll number was mentioned against Room No. 12. Accordingly, the petitioner went to Room No. 12 and found that outside the said room the roll numbers of the candidates who were to sit and take their examination in the said room was pasted. The petitioner found that Roll No. 2116, which was the Roll number allotted to him, was mentioned in the list. He therefore took his seat in Room No. 12 after showing his admit card to the invigilator concerned. He also found that on a desk in Room No. 12 his Roll number had been pasted. The petitioner, accordingly, took his seat in Room No. 12 and wrote his answers in that room. The question paper given to him was of the objective type. His attendance was marked by the invigilator in charge of Room No. 12, and he also put his signature on the attendance chart. The petitioner fared well at the examination and expected to be called for interview. There was no adverse report against the petitioner as to his conduct while writing the examination. However, when the list of successful candidates was published on November 16, 1990, the petitioner was surprised to find that his name did not figure in the list of successful candidates. On enquiry the petitioner came to learn that persons who had secured less marks than him and who had inferior educational qualification, had been called for interview. The petitioner has referred to some of the persons so called for interview in paragraph No. 37 of the writ application. He collected such information from the office of the Secretary of Bihar State Electricity Board. The petitioner, therefore, approached this Court with a grievance that while others securing lesser marks and having inferior educational qualification had been called for interview, the petitioner had not been called for interview, and this amounted to arbitrary action on the part of the authorities. The instant writ application was filed on February 25, 1991 stating that the interviews were to be held from January 25, 1991 to April 5, 1991. The petitioner prayed that having regard to the facts of the case he should be permitted to appear in the interview and be considered for appointment.

4. A counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondent-Electricity Board and its officers on March 12th, 1991. On that very day the writ application was admitted for hearing and an interim order was passed that such of the petitioners who had qualified in the written test shall be permitted to appear at the oral test/interview along with other eligible candidates, but the result of such petitioners shall be subject to the decision in these applications. Liberty was given to the Board to proceed with the matter with regard to the allegation of adopting unfair means by the petitioners at the written test It was further directed that the vacancies proportionate to the number of the petitioners who may qualify after the oral interview shall be kept reserved till the final decision of the writ petition. .

5. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 to 4 it was stated that the candidature of the petitioner had been cancelled for the reason that he had adopted unfair means at the examination. That was the reason why he was not called for inter view. It was also asserted that under Section 78A of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948, the State Government was empowered to issue directions relating to policy matters but it was not authorised to issue directions in regard to the percentage of marks to be awarded for educational qualification, interview etc. Such directions, if issued by the State Government, were not binding upon the Board.

6. The main contention of the respondents was that the Board had taken adequate steps to conduct a fair examination. Necessary instructions had been issued to the officers of the Board engaged in the conduct of the examination by Order No. 5182 dated October 4, 1990. A sitting arrangement had been made and the said arrangement was notified for information to all concerned by affixing the same at the gate of the examination centre, on the notice board of the examination centre, as also near the door of the concerned room in the examination centre. The instruction has been annexed as Annexure-A which directed the invigilators to strictly adhere to the room-wise sitting arrangement. According to the sitting plan the petitioner who was given Roll No. 2116 was to sit in Room No. 7 which was on the first floor of Pariksha Bhawan of Patna College centre. The petitioner, however, managed to sit in Room No. 12 on the ground floor of the Language Block of the Centre, obviously with a view to adopt unfair means at the examination. No permission was granted to the petitioner either by the invigilator or the Centre Superintendent or by the Controller of Examination permitting him to sit in any room other than the room where his seat had been allotted The officers of the Board deputed to conduct the examination in different rooms were required to take the attendance of the candidates appearing at the examination. So far as Room No. 7 is concerned, since the petitioner was not present, the invigilator in charge of that room marked him absent and the said attendance sheet was sent to the Board's office. After the written examination was over, the answer books were received in the Board's office, where each one of the answer books was given a code number, and the roll numbers were removed from the answer books. The answer books were thereafter sent for evaluation. After the evaluation was done the answer books were decided and the necessary particulars, including the marks obtained by the candidates, were fed into the computer. In the case of the petitioner, when his particulars were fed into the computer, it declined to accept the same, because the data earlier fed in the computer indicated that the petitioner was to sit in Room No. 7 and write the examination. Since the petitioner had written the examination sitting in Room No. 12, the computer did not accept the data fed into it on the ground of such discrepancy. It was found, that apart from the petitioner, there were seven other candidates who sat in Room No 12 and wrote the examination instead of sitting in the rooms allotted to them. The Board took a serious view of the matter and found that the conduct of the petitioner and seven others was unbecoming of an officer, and they had for ulterior motives deliberately violated the instruction of the Board and had sat in a room other than the one allotted to them for writing the examination. The Chairman of the Board, therefore, rejected the candidature of the petitioner and seven others by his order dated December 7, 1990. In its counter-affidavit the Board justified awarding of 30 marks for educational qualification, but clarified that the academic performance of a candidate was to be judged only on the basis of the percentage marks obtained at the qualifying degree/diploma examination. It was further clarified in its supplementary counter-affidavit that each candidate was awarded 30 per cent of the marks obtained by him in the final examination of B.Sc. (Engineering) under the head 'educational qualification'. The Board also justified

awarding of 30 marks for the viva voce test.

7. It appears from Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit that the sitting arrangement made for the examination was a detailed one. In respect of the Patna College Centre the sitting arrangement provided that in each room a certain number of candidates were to sit and take the examination. The number of candidates to sit in each room has been clearly mentioned as also the names of the invigilators. In respect of each room the roll numbers of the candidates required to sit and take the examination in that room have been mentioned. The sitting arrangement in respect of Room No. 7 on the first floor discloses thai 75 candidates were to sit and write the examination in the aforesaid room. The roll numbers of the candidates, who were to writ the examination in Room No. 7 have been mentioned as Roll Nos. 2069 to 2150. This obviously included the roll number of the petitioner, which was 2116. In respect of Room No. 12on the ground floor, it provides for sitting of 50 candidates with Roll Nos. 3072 to 3112. It is, therefore, obvious from the sitting arrangement notified by the Board that the petitioner was to sit and write the examination in Room No. 7 on the first floor of Pariksha Bhawan, and not Room No. 12. The instructions issued by the Board are detailed instructions. Instruction No. 5 provides that first checking will be done at the entrance gate of the centre itself. Only those candidates will be allowed to go inside the examination centre who will show the admit card issued by the Bihar State Electricity Board. Roomwise sitting arrangement with number of candidates allowed to sit in each room will be displayed at the main gate as also on the general notice board of the centre, besides at each room concerned. A copy of the sitting arrangement with the above details was enclosed for guidance of Centre Superintendent/Additional Centre Superintendent and Invigilators. Instruction No. 16 provides that identity of each candidate appearing in the examination should be duly checked with reference to the photograph in the admit card, and the signatures of the candidates present and appearing in the examination roomAiall should be obtained on the attendance sheet in Form-C in duplicate by the invigilator.

It is, therefore, the case of the respondent-Board that the petitioner was required to sit in Room No. 7 and to take the written examination. Instead, he managed to sit in Room No. 12 obviously for ulterior reasons. Ms was the ground on which his candidature was cancelled by the Chairman of the Board. Annexure-B filed with the counter-affidavit shows that in the attendance sheet, which is a computer print-out, the name of the petitioner appears at Serial No. 396 along with his roll number. He has been marked absent in the aforesaid attendance sheet There are others like him who have been marked absent, but those present have signed the attendance sheet. At the bottom of the sheet the invigilator has also put his signature.

8. It is further contended on the respondent-Board that not only the petitioner but seven others were unfortunately allowed to appear at the written examination sitting in Room No. 12, when they were supposed to write their examination siting in other rooms as notified in the sitting arrangement Having regard to the fact mat such irregularity was committed only in Room No. 12, the three invigilators who were deputed to conduct the examination in Room No. 12 were issued show-cause notices calling upon them to show-cause why the Board should not take appropriate disciplinary action against mem. A copy of the show-cause notice has been annexed as Annexure-C.

9. The petitioner in his affidavit contends that there was no report against the petitioner of his having adopted unfair means at the examination. Moreover, his candidature was cancelled without notice to him. The petitioner reiterated the facts stated by him in the writ application and stated that since his roll number was mentioned against Room No. 12 in the list, he went to Room No. 12 and finding that his name was mentioned in the list pasted near the door of Room No. 12, he took his seat in that room. He also found that his roll number was pasted on the desk where he was supposed to sit and write the examination. Before he was permitted to take his seat in Room No. 12, the invigilator had checked his admit card and found everything to be in order. The petitioner did not go to Room No. 12 on his owa He went to that room because from the list it appeared that he was to sit in that room and write the examination. The petitioner has also referred to the show-cause submitted by the invigilators to whom notices were issued by the Board. The invigilators have stated in their show-cause that the roll number of the petitioner was displayed outside Room No. 12 and also pasted on one of the desks in the said room. Consequently, the petitioner and some others whose names were similarly displayed were directed to take the examination in that room and their attendance was also taken.

10. In its supplementary counter-affidavit filed on November 18, 1991 respondent Nos. 2 to 4 have contended that by Memo No. 737 dated April 26, 1991, show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner to explain as to why he may not be disqualified for appointment to the post for the reason that the petitioner had managed to sit in Room No. 12 in an unauthorised manner with a view to use unfair means in connivance with the invigilators. He had, therefore, deliberately defied instructions issued by the Board regarding conduct of the examination with ulterior motive in connivance with the invigilators. The petitioner had filed his reply to the notice and after considering the same a final order was in the process of communication to the petitioner. The supplementary counter-affidavit also mentions that the show-cause submitted by the three invigilators was also being considered by the competent 'authority.

11. The hearing of the writ application was concluded on November 18, 1991 and judgment was reserved. However, by another application filed on November 20, 1991, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner prayed for amendment of the writ application with a view to challenge the Office Order No. 71120, dated November 15, 1991 issued by the Director of Personnel, Bihar State Electricity Board rejecting the explanation furnished by the petitioner to the show-cause issued to him earlier. The petitioner submitted that though the order was passed on November 15, 1991 and the matter was heard on November 18, 1991, counsel for the Board did not inform the Court that show-cause furnished by the petitioner had been rejected. The petitioner received the aforesaid

order rejecting his show-cause (Annexure-9)on

Npvember 18th, 1991 in the evening. On such

averments the petitioner sought leave of this

Court to amend the writ application and to chal

lenge the validity of Anhexure-9. By order

dated November 21, 1991 the Board was granted

time to file its counter-affidavit in reply to the

application for amendment of writ application.

Ultimately, by order dated November 21, 1991

the application for amendment of the writ petition was allowed and the Board was directed to

file its counter-affidavit, if so advised, with lib

erty to the petitioner to file a rejoinder affidavit

The matter thereafter came up for further hear

ing after filing of affidavit by the parties.

12. In its further counter-affidavit filed on February 26, 1992 the respondent-Board contended that the claim of the petitioner that he had 2 taken his examination sitting in Room No. 12 according to the sitting arrangement/plan was not true. There was no question of his roll number being pasted either near the main door of Room No. 12 or on the desk in Room No. 12. For each room a separate computerised attendance sheet was provided and the candidates were to put their signature on such computerised attendance sheet So far as the petitioner is concerned, his attendance was recorded on a separate sheet other than the computerised attendance sheet provided for Room No. 12. It was asserted that the invigilators of the said Room No. 12 and petitioner and some others acted in collusion for ulterior reasons. The petitioner and some others sat in Room No. 12 with the connivance of two invigilators with a view to adopt unfair means in the examination, which was clearly in violation of the instruction issued to the invigilators. Out of three invigilators who had been deputed in Room No. 12, it was found that one of them had not attended duty on the day in question. So far as the remaining two invigilators were concerned, they were issued show-cause notices to which they submitted their ex- planations which were found to be unsatisfactory. The Board, therefore, decided to issue to them show-cause notices as to why appropriate disciplinary action be not taken against them. Charges have also been framed against those two invigilators. These documents have been Annexed as D and E respectively. The Board further contended that in view of the order of this Court dated March 12th 1991, the Board with a view to provide adequate opportunity to the petitioner and others, issued show-cause notices to them to which the petitioner and others replied. After considering the show-cause filed by the petitioner and others, the same were rejected, since they were not found to be satisfactory. In his rejoinder the petitioner has emphasised the fact that since he had not been found to be using unfair means there was no question of his being disqualified. The petitioner other wise reiterated the assertions made in the writ application that he sat in Room No. 12, as he was required to sit in that room according to the sitting plan. He further explained that the Secretary of the Board had come to the room in question for inspection and on his direction the invigilators took the signature of the petitioner on an attendance sheet separately in the leftover space.

13. It has now been made clear by the respondents that the petitioners were disqualified on the ground that they had taken the examination sitting on Room No. 12 instead of the rooms to which they had been allotted seats for writing the examination. A disciplinary proceeding has also been initiated against the two invigilators who were on duty in Room No. 12 for having permitted the petitioners to write the examination sitting in that room without proper authorisation. The case of the respondents is that the petitioners were required to sit in different rooms, but they purposely chose to sit in Room No. 12, obviously with a view to adopt unfair means in the examination. This having been discovered, they were disqualified from consideration for appointment to the post If the action of the respondents is to be upheld on this ground, the other points urged on behalf of the petitioners lose significance. Therefore, I proceed to deal with this aspect of the matter first

14. From the materials placed on record it is quite evident that a very detailed procedure/guidelines had been laid down by the respondents for the conduct of the examination. The sitting arrangement was prominently displayed at the entrance as well as outside the

rooms where candidates were required to write the examination. It is also disputed that the invigilators were required to strictly follow the instructions, and only after verifying all relevant facts could they permit a candidate to sit in the room and write the examinatioa The invigilators were also required to take the signatures of the candidates on the attendance sheets which were also to be signed by the invigilators. These charts, including the attendance sheets, are 1 computer print-outs. The respondents contend that the sitting arrangement notified by the respondents and displayed at prominent places clearly indicated the particular room in which each candidate was to sit In C.W.J.C. No. 1441 of 1991 respondent Nos. 2 to 4 have annexed to their counter-affidavit the instructions issued by the Director of Personnel as Annexure-A. Enclosed therewith is the sitting plan for the Patna College Centre. The chart shows that candidates with roll numbers 2069 to 2150 were to sit in Room No. 7, which included the roll number of the petitioner, which was 2116. It is, therefore, difficult to believe the petitioner when he states that his roll number was shown against Room 2 No. 12. The same chart shows that candidates with roll numbers 3072 to 3112 were to sit in Room No. 12 of Language Block. Obviously, therefore, on the basis of the chart, the petitioner with roll number 2116 could not sit in Room No. 12 to write the examination. Annexure to the counter-affidavit is also Annexure-B, which is the attendance sheet appertaining to Room No. 7, where the petitioner was required to sit and write the examination. Annexure-B relates to candidates with roll numbers 2105 to 2116. Out of 12 candidates whose roll numbers and names are mentioned in the attendance sheet, five were marked absent including the petitioner with roll number 2116. The remaining seven candidates who were present have signed the attendance sheet, which has also been signed by the invigilator. Not only this, their answer book numbers are also mentioned in the attendance sheet. It is, therefore, apparent that the petitioner did not sit in Room No. 7 to write the examination, and he was, therefore, marked absent.

15. The next question that arises is whether the petitioner was justified in sitting in Room No. 12 to write the examination. According to the petitioner, he found that his roll number was mentioned against Room No. 12, both on the sitting arrangement notified in front of the gate of the College as also outside room No. 3 2. He further claims that his roll number was pasted on one of the desks in Room No. 12. He, therefore, took his seat in Room No. 12 and wrote the examination. It is difficult to believe the statement of the petitioner, having regard to the materials placed before me by the respondents, including the sitting arrangement and the attendance sheets which show that the petitioner was to sit in Room No. 7. It is, therefore, not understandable how the petitioner could sit in Room No. 12, and it is also difficult to imagine why the invigilators permitted him to sit in Room No. 12. The respondents have, therefore, suspected the conduct of the invigilators and in my view, rightly. It appears that the petitioners were interested in sitting in Room No. 12 and that is why though according to the sitting arrangement, the petitioners were required to sit in different rooms, they chose to sit in Room No. 12 with the active connivance of the invigilators. Though they claim to have marked their presence in Room No. 12, it appears their names were written on a separate sheet of paper and not on the printed attendance sheets supplied to each invigilator in respect of the room under his charge. Perhaps, this fact would never have been discovered but for the rejection by the computer, which detected that the room number did tally with the sitting plan. Only thereafter on enquiry it was found that the petitioners had sat in some other room to write the examination.

16. It was urged on behalf of the petitioners that assuming that they sat in some other room instead of the rooms allotted to them, that by itself would not prove misconduct or amount to adopting unfair means at the examination. Infact, they were not found adopting unfair means. It was, therefore, contended that the rejection of their candidature on such ground was illegal. In my view, the contention must be rejected. Rules and instructions issued by the respondents in regard to the conduct of examination, were designed to conduct fair examination. The respondents took great care to provide for every detail so that there was no confusion about the instructions. The petitioners also knew that they were to sit in the rooms where seats had been provided for them. Where rules are framed with a view to conduct a fair examination, no candidate can be permitted to violate the rules and plead in defence that he was not caught red handed. Such instructions have to be strictly followed. It is difficult to conceive all the situations that may arise is such cases. Human ingenuity has no limitation, more so when unfair means are sought to be adopted. In the instant case it is difficult to explain why the petitioners chose to sit in Room No. 12 to write the examination, when they were required to sit elsewhere. It is also difficult to explain why the invigilators deputed in Room No. 12 permitted them to write their examination sitting in that room when their roll numbers did not appear either in the sitting arrangement or in the attendance sheet It is also difficult to explain why all such candidates chose to sit in the same room. Obviously, therefore, there are good reasons to suspect that there was something common between the petitioners and the invigilators deputed in that room. It may be that the invigilators may have helped the petitioners, or it may be that the invigilators permitted the petitioners to adopt unfair means. It is true that the petitioners were not caught red handed, but that will make no difference. Even an attempt to adopt unfair means at the examination may result in disqualification, even though the attempt may not succeed. One may take the case of a candidate who stealthily carries with him chits or other material which he is prohibited from carrying inside the examination hall. Ifitis found that he had committed a breach of the rules/instructions by carrying such prohibited material inside the examination hall, the fact that he could not make use of such material, or that he did not get an opportunity of so using the material, is of no consequence. The purity of examination demands that any candidate adopting such means must be disqualified. Once the explanation furnished by petitioners is rejected, there appears no good reason why they chose to sit in Room No. 12. If the respondents have ' come to the conclusion that this was with a view to adopt unfair means in the examination in collusion with the invigilators, it cannot be said that the conclusion reached by them is either unreasonable or arbitrary. It has been brought to our notice that a disciplinary proceeding has been initiated against the invigilators as well. Moreover, there is no reason why the respondents should choose to victimise the petitioners, There is nothing worth mentioning on the record even to suggest that anyone was maliciously disposed towards the petitioners for any reason whatsoever. No reason has been suggested why the respondents picked out only seven persons out of 1700 candidates for such treatment. I have, therefore, no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the petitioners misconducted themselves by sitting in Room No. 12 of the examination centre instead of the room allotted to them. The conclusion reached by the respondents that they did so with a view to adopt unfair means in collusion with the invigilators deputed in that room, cannot be said to be either arbitrary or unreasonable. There is no allegation of mala fide against the officers of the respondent-Board. The fact that a proceeding has been initiated against the invigilators as well, signifies that the Board acted bona fide. The mere fact that there is no proof of the petitioners having adopted unfair means in fact, is of no significance having regard to the surrounding circumstances, because the suspicion is also against the invigilators who could be the only persons who could have reported the adoption of unfair means by the petitioners, Since they appear to have acted in collusion with the petitioners, much importance cannot be attached to the fact that no one had seen the petitioners adopting unfair means. It is quite clear that the petitioners sat in Room No. 12 contrary to the instructions and the sitting plan, obviously with a view to adopt unfair means. Unfortunately, in this State, examinations have lost their sanctity on account of a large scale unfair means adopted by examinees. The authorities have failed to ensure fair examination for fear of violence which tends to disturb even those candidates who are honest and sin-cere. The problem cannot be lightly viewed, and if the respondents have taken firm action, they cannot be found fault with it.

17. In view of the conclusion reached by me

that the petitioners have rightly been disqualified

from consideration, the other submissions urged

on their behalf have lost significance for a decision in this batch of writ petitions. The conduct of the petitioners has been such as to disentitle them from grant of any discretionary relief, even if their other submissions may be worth considering.

18. In the result, these writ applications are dismissed, but without any order as to costs.