ASHOK Bhushan, J. - (1.) Heard Counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. With the consent of both the parties the present writ petition is finally disposed of. 2. Seven petitioners have filed the present writ petition praying for quashing the impugned order dated 21-10-1999 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition) by which the Joint Director of Education has issued a notice in the newspaper dated 21-10-1999 to the effect that the District Magistrate, Jhansi has passed an order cancelling the typing test and interview held on 25-2-1999, 27-2-1999 and 28-3-1999. The notice further stated that fresh typing test will be held on 30-12-1999. The petitioners case is that in pursuance of the advertisement issued by the respondent dated 10-8-1998 fourteen posts of stenographers and twenty six posts of junior clerks were advertised. The petitioners had applied for the posts of stenographer. Written examination was held and the result of which was declared on 18-2-1999 in which all the petitioners were found selected. Petitioners were called for appearing in type test which was to be conducted on 25-2-1999 and result of which was declared on 26-2-1999. All the petitioners were directed to appear for interview on 27-2-1999 in which the petitioners appeared. After the aforesaid the Joint Director of Education has issued notice which occasioned for filing of the present writ petition. This Court on 23-12-1999 passed the following order:- "learned Standing Counsel may file counter affidavit within six weeks. List after expiry of aforesaid period. It is alleged in the writ petition that the petitioners had appeared for selection and were declared successful in the written and typing examination but the result of the interview has not been declared. A direction was issued by this Court on 13-12-1999 for declaration of the result but instead of declaring the result, the respondents have cancelled the entire selection and arc holding fresh selection without giving any reason. In view of this till the counter-affidavit is filed by the respondents, it is directed that the petitioners will also he permitted to appear at the fresh selection but the result of the fresh selection will not be declared till further orders. 11 is made clear that if the petitioners despite this order do not voluntarily appear in the selection and ultimately the writ petition will be dismissed, they will not be heard to complain that they have not participated in the fresh selection and therefore, selection should be held again. The certified copy of this order may be issued on payment of usual charges today if possible otherwise learned Counsel for the petitioner will be permitted to copy out this order so that the same may be filed along with affidavit before the authority concerned. " 3. In view of the order passed by this Court on 23-12-1999 although the subsequent typing test took place but result in pursuance of the subsequent test held on 13-12-1999 has not been declared. The petitioners in the writ petition has made two submissions. The first submission of the petitioner is that the District Magistrate, Jhansi does not have any jurisdiction under the U. P. Procedure for Direct Recruitment for Group 'c' Posts (Outside the purview of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission) Rules, 1998 to held the selection. It has been contended that when the District Magistrate has no jurisdiction to conduct the selection, he cannot have any jurisdiction to cancel the typing test and interview. Thus the order passed by the District Magistrate to cancel the typing test and interview is without jurisdiction. 4. The second submission made by the Counsel for the petitioner is that there is no material on record which may justify the cancellation of typing test and interview by the District Magistrate. Neither in the counter affidavit nor in the copy of the letter of the District Magistrate dated 10-12-1999 annexed alongwith the counter affidavit there are any material referred or brought on record which may justify the decision of cancelling the typing test and result. 5. The admitted facts which emerged from the pleadings of the parties are that an advertisement was issued on 10th August, 1998, inviting application for 14 posts of stenographers and 26 posts of junior clerks. The advertisement has been filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The advertisement is said to have been issued by the Education Department of the State. In the present writ petition the petitioner has applied only against the post of stenographer thus the present petitioners are confining their prayer only with regard to the posts of stenographers and with regard to selection held on the post of junior clerks, the petitioners have no concern nor they prayed for any relief pertaining to the post of junior clerks. In pursuance of the advertisement the petitioners applied and written test was held on 13-12- 1998. The result of written test was declared on 18-2-1999 in which all the petitioners were declared selected in the written test. It is to be noted that upto to the declaration of the result of the written test there is no challenge or any allegation. The petitioners have further stated that the typing test was held on 25-2-99 which was conducted by the respondent No. 3 and thereafter on 17-2-1999 the petitioners appeared for interview before the committee consisting of (i) Joint Director of Education; (ii) Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Jhansi, a nominee of the District Magistrate; (iii) Principal, Government Inter College, Jhansi and (iv) Additional Director (Basic)/district Inspector of Schools. The interview took place on 27-2-1999 but the result was not declared. In the counter-affidavit it has been stated that a complaint was filed before the District Magistrate which has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the counter affidavit. The aforesaid complaint is undated. However, there is an order dated 27-2-1999 of the District Magistrate, Jhansi directing the Joint Director of Education to give report and till then the result of examination be not declared. In the counter affidavit it has been stated that due to the aforesaid order dated 27-2-1999 of the District Magistrate, the result was not declared. It has been further stated in the counter affidavit that the fresh appointments in Group 'c' and Group 'd' posts were prohibited by the Government order 8-1-1999, 5-3-1999 and 8-3-1999. However, in the counter affidavit copies of the aforesaid Government orders have not been annexed nor it is the case of the respondents that the aforesaid result has not been declared due to any ban because the respondents themselves have issued notice dated 21-12-1999 for holding typing test again. In the counter affidavit copy of letter dated 10- 12-1999 sent by the District Magistrate to Joint Director of Education, Jhansi Mandal, Jhansi has been filed as Annexure C. A. 4 in which it has been stated that after enquiry in the earlier complaint, the examination was cancelled and the State Government was informed that after completion of Lok Sabha election the typing test of stenographers will be held again. The letter dated 10-12-1999 also did not give any reason or suggest any material on the basis of which the decision to cancel the typing test and interview was taken. The petitioner in his rejoinder affidavit has referred to the letter dated 19-4-1999 written by the Joint Director of Education, Jhansi to the Director of Education. In the aforesaid letter the Joint Director of Education has written that typing test of stenographer was held and notified on 25-2-1999. It was further stated that in the first round 56 candidates were called for typing test in which 14 candidates were selected and they were interviewed on 27-2-1999. The Joint Director of Education has enquired as to whether the candidates selected in the first round should be issued appointment letters. It was further enquired as to whether the candidates who are declared selected in the second round of the typing test should also be included. The Joint Director of Education has further written a letter to the Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi on 3-5-1999 in which it was stated that the typing test held on 25- 2-1999 fifty six candidates were called and out of them fourteen candidates were declared selected and their names have been mentioned in the said letter dated 3-5-1999 annexed as Annexure-2 to the rejoinder affidavit. Annexure R. A. 3 is a letter dated 1st May, 1999 written by the Principal, Government Industrial Training Institute, Jhansi to the Director of Education. The aforesaid letter is a report with regard to the complaint received against the typing test. The Principal in his report has reported in detail the procedure which was followed in holding the typing test and according to the Principal the typing test was conducted in accordance with the standard of the National Council of Vocational Training and all the candidates were examined at the same place in presence of six invigilators, appointing authority, Examination Superintendent and Examiner and within twenty four hours after the conclusion of the examination, the result was declared. The candidates were permitted to keep copy of their typing which can always be examined to verify the allegation. 6. I have considered the submissions made by the Counsel for both the parties. With regard to first submission made by the Counsel for the petitioner 1998 Rules defines 'appointing authority' under Rule 3 (a) in the following manner:- Rule 3 (a) "appointing authority" means the authority empowered to make appointment under the relevant Service Rules. " In the U. P. Subordinate Educational Ministerial Service Rules, 1985 'appointing authority' has been defined under Rule 3 (a) in the following manner :- Rule 3 (a) '"appointing authority' in relation to a post means the authority specified as such against the post in Appendix 'a'. In Appendix A' to the Rules, the appointing authority of Stenographer is Additional Director of Education Basic. Under 1985 Rules the District Magistrate does not have any authority to conduct the selection or to take any decision with regard to selection on the post of Stenographer. Rule 6 of 1978 Rules provide for constitution of the Selection Committee. According to said Rules the appointing authority is the Chairman of the Selection Committee. Three members of Selection Committee are to be nominated by the Chairman of the Selection Committee and one Officer is required to be nominated by the District Magistrate in the Selection Committee. According to Rule 6 Note (ii) the appointing authority may nominate an officer senior to other members as Chairman of the Selection Committee. Thus from the aforesaid rules cannot be held that the District Magistrate has any power to cancel the typing test and the interview. It is important to note here that in the present case there is no challenge to the entire examination. There is no challenge to the recruitment upto the written examination. It is only the typing test and the interview which has been cancelled and with direction hold fresh typing test and interview. The recruitment process is an integrated process and the same should have been brought to its logical end i. e. the declaration of the result. 7. With regard to second submission of the Counsel for the petitioner that there is no material on record brought by the respondents which can justify the scraping of the typing test and interview, I have examined the records. The counter affidavit does not refer to any material nor there is any material from which it can be proved that there was any irregularity in the typing test or interview. The counter affidavit also does not stale as to what was the irregularity committed in the typing test and interview. There is neither any order of the District Magistrate cancelling the typing test and interviewing nor any report of a competent person suggesting any irregularity in the typing test and the interview. The authority competent to conduct the selection has always jurisdiction to cancel the whole selection. It is, however, accepted that cancellation of whole selection takes place, if there are serious allegation and irregularities in the conduct of the examination. In the present case, there is no case that vacancies have been withdrawn. I have examined this matter on merits and to satisfy myself as to whether there was any serious irregularity in the conduct of the examination. The respondents have not even alleged any serious irregularity in holding of the typing test and the interview. The letter dated 19-4-1999 of the respondent No. 2 sent to the Director of Education, which has been field as Annexure R. A. 1 and the report dated 3-5-1999 sent by the respondent No. 2 to the Commissioner, clearly states that the typing test was held on 25th February, 1999 and in which fourteen candidates were declared pass. The appointing authority has not referred to any irregularity in the conduct of the typing test and the interview. The report of the Principal dated 1-5-1999 which was submitted in the light of the complaint received, is on the record which also suggest that the typing test and interview was held properly. The respondents have failed to satisfy that there was any material or any valid reason for cancelling the typing test and interview. The notice issued by the Joint Director of Education dated 21-12-1999 is thus liable to be quashed since it was not based on any valid reason. 8. In view of what has been said above, the order/dated 21-12-1999 Annexure-9 to the writ petition is quashed. The respondents are directed to declare the result of the selection on the post of stenographer on the basis of typing test held on 25-2-1999 and the interview held on 27-2-1999. The aforesaid declaration of the result shall be made by the respondents within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 9. The writ petition is allowed as indicated above. The parties shall bear their own costs. Petition allowed. .;