Preliminary challenge to a show cause notice is not maintainable before reply; recipient must respond for merits determination.

Writ challenge to a show cause notice prior to the recipient replying is premature; courts should not quash or interfere with issuance-stage notices except where the notice is issued without jurisdiction or is palpably without authority, and such jurisdictional defects must be raised before the issuing authority after providing a hearing. The impugned notice was issued pursuant to the Court's grant of liberty for an independent enquiry, records a tentative view based on material and invites explanation before any adverse order, and shortlisting on positive evidence is not shown to be arbitrary. Outcome: petition dismissed; petitioners directed to answer the notice for merits adjudication.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ petition challenging the legality of a show cause notice may be entertained before the recipient has replied to the notice, and whether the show cause notice issued in continuation of the Court's prior order is liable to be quashed as arbitrary or preclusive of a fair hearing.

Analysis: The legal framework applied includes the settled principle that courts should ordinarily refrain from quashing or interfering with show cause notices at the stage of their issuance and should require the recipient to respond unless the notice is issued without jurisdiction or is palpably without authority. Authorities establish that entertaining writ petitions against show cause notices can retard investigative or disciplinary processes and that issues as to the legal basis of the notice and jurisdictional defects can be raised before and adjudicated by the authority issuing the notice after hearing the recipient. The impugned notice was issued pursuant to the liberty granted by this Court to the examining authority to conduct an independent enquiry and to afford an opportunity of hearing; it records a tentative view based on material received and invites explanation prior to any final adverse order. The shortlisting of a limited number of candidates on the basis of positive evidence does not, by itself, demonstrate arbitrariness.

Conclusion: The writ petition challenging the show cause notice without first submitting a reply is not maintainable; the petition is dismissed and the petitioners must respond to the show cause notice to enable the competent authority to consider and decide the matter on merits.

---