Pramath Patnaik, J.

1. Since similar issues are involved in all the writ petitions and the prayer in the aforesaid writ petitions pertains to termination from services by the decision of the Executive Council of the Central University of Jharkhand, with the consent of the respective counsels these writ petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by common order/judgment.

2. In the accompanied writ applications, the petitioners have inter alia prayed for quashing the letter dated 16.09.2013 issued by the Registrar, Central University of Jharkhand pertaining to discharge the petitioners from services with effect from 14.09.2013, and for issuance of writ/directions commanding upon the respondents to forthwith reinstate the petitioners on their original posts and also for issuance of writ/direction to declare that so called notification dated 05.08.2013 issued in purported compliance of amended Statute 11 of the Central Universities Act, 2009 having no legal enforceability because of non publication of the Official Gazette as required under Section 43 of the Central Universities Act, 2009.

3. The factual matrix, as has been delineated in the writ applications, in a nutshell, is that the petitioners were appointed to the respective posts of Deputy Registrar, Harish Mohan (in W.P.(S) no.6186 of 2013), Executive Engineer, Kumar Pankaj Anand (in W.P.(S) no.6127 of 2013), Section Officer, Sandeep Kumar (in W.P.(S) no.6160 of 2013) and Medical Officer, Dr. Ishwar Chand Bidyasagar (in W.P.(S) no.6163 of 2013) for which they had applied in pursuance to the advertisement dated 15.04.2011 floated by the Central University of Jharkhand. The petitioners after being selected received offer of appointment to the respective posts in Central University of Jharkhand vide letter dated 18.11.2011. In pursuance to the appointment order, the petitioners submitted their joining reports and all the appointments were made against the sanctioned posts by the U.G.C., and the appointment of the petitioners was subjected to University Act, Statutes, Ordinance, Rules and Regulations applicable from time to time. On perusal of the appointment letter, it is apparent that the petitioners’ appointments were on probation for the period of two years which may, if needed, be extended to another year. During continuance in service, a show cause dated 07.05.2013 was served upon the petitioners, Kumar Pankaj Anand, Executive Engineer (in W.P.(S) no.6127 of 2013) and Dr. Ishwar Chand Vidyasagar, Medical Officer (in W.P.(S) no.6163 of 2013), alleging irregularities in reimbursement of medical bills and both were asked as to why departmental proceeding be not initiated against them for suitable actions. The petitioners in said cases filed appeal before the Executive Council stating their grievances vide representation dated 15.05.2013. But, to the utter surprise and consternation vide letter dated 16.09.2013 issued by the Registrar, Central University, Jharkhand, it has been communicated to the petitioners that University has decided to dispense with and discharge the petitioners from services with effect from 14.09.2013 which are impugned in the writ applications.

Being aggrieved by the impugned order, left with no alternative, efficacious and speedy remedy, the petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court for redressal of their grievances.

4. Before adverting to the rival contentions of the respective parties, it would be apposite to refer to relevant statutes of the Central Universities Act, 2009, which are reproduced herein below:

“Section 2(i) of the Act, defines the word “employee” means any person appointed by the University and includes teachers and other staff of the University;

Section 26(f) of the Act, defines the conditions of service of employees including provisions for pension, insurance, provident fund, the manner of termination of service and discipli