case that petitioners did not possess the requisite qualification nor there is any proof of violation of any prescribed procedure. In (C) Bishwanath Das's case, general law was discussed that appointments should not be made in violation of statutory rules and I think there is no quarrel about this principle but what is required to be proved is that a specific procedure is prescribed and that was violated. Impugned order has been passed by making general alleataions that in making appointments in question SDI played bad role and that prescribed procedure was not followed, however, there is no finding returned how SDI acted badly or arbitrarily and what specific procedure that is prescribed, was not followed. In the absence of any proof and finding on that score, allegations are bald and flimsy with no legs to stand. Similarly again in ( D ) Satya Prakash's case , it had come to be admitted position that particular rule was not followed and so also in the case of ( E) Daya Shankar Upadhyay, , fraud was proved on record. Here neither there is plea of fraud taken nor, any proof thereof has been recorded under the impugned order except a conclusion that appointments were fraudulent and that too without there being any iota of evidence. So in my opinion none of the above authorities are of any help to the respondents in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
