Selection (hereinafter referred to as ‘IBPS’), however, there was no such plea raised in the writ petitions. He also submitted that the respondents-writ petitioners failed to allege or establish any mala-fide against the IBPS in conducting the selection process. He further submitted that IBPS has conducted the recruitment examination through out the country also and it holds well established reputation of fairness and integrity. He further submitted that direction of the learned Single Judge for revisiting the selection process, according to the appellants, is contradictory and unsustainable. He also submits that, in compliance of the impugned order, the Board has been directed to revisit the selection process for all the three posts, however, none of the writ petitioners challenged the selection for the post of Law Officer-II, as such the directions issued for revisiting the selection process for the post of Law Officer-II are beyond the scope of the pleadings. He further submitted that the appellants who were selected for the post of Law Officer-II were not party to the writ proceedings, and therefore, the order passed by the learned Single Judge behind their back directing for revisiting the selection process is in violation of the principles of natural justice. He further submits that there is no allegation of mala fide in any of the writ petitions either against the officers of the Board or against the recruitment agency, IBPS, therefore, it cannot be said that the selection process suffers with mala fide. He also submitted that once the private respondents-original writ petitioners participated in the selection process, they are estopped from challenging the outcome of the result and final selection after participating in the
