JUDGMENT :

Heard the parties.

2. The petitioner has challenged the order contained in Order No. 558 dated 30.5.2020 (Annexure-14 to the writ petition) passed by respondent no. 4, whereby the appointment of the petitioner has been cancelled. The petitioner has further prayed for reinstatement with all consequential benefits.

3. The facts as delineated in the writ petition are that the respondent Central University of Jharkhand published an advertisement on 15.4.2011 for appointment on different posts including the post of Executive Engineer. The last date of submission of the application was 20.5.2011. The petitioner applied for appointment on the post of Executive Engineer and after he was found fit and eligible, he was appointed on 18.11.2011 in the pay scale of 15600-39100 with Grade Pay of Rs. 6600. Pursuant thereto, he joined on 3.2.2012. After serving for a considerable period, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 22.5.2020, which he duly replied on 27.5.2020 and thereafter, by the impugned order, the service of the petitioner was terminated. The specific case of the petitioner is that he possessed the degree of Bachelor in Civil Engineering with 10 years of experience, as stipulated in the advertisement and therefore, he was rightly appointed. It is further case of the petitioner that there was a general information under Clause (xvi) of the advertisement dated 15.4.2011 itself to the effect inter alia that the University may relax the qualification/experience and age limit at its discretion at any stage in case of candidates with exceptional merit.

4. The respondent University has filed its counter affidavit stating inter alia that the petitioner did not possess the requisite experience of ten years and hence, his appointment was ab initio void. Further it was detected that the petitioner did not possess the essential qualification of experience as per the advertisement. Therefore, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 22.5.2020 which was duly served upon him. The show cause duly stipulates that the petitioner lacked the essential qualification of experience of ten years as stipulated in the advertisement. This show cause was duly replied by the petitioner on 27.5.2020 and after considering the show cause reply, the impugned order of termination was passed in terms of the Rules / Statutes applicable in the facts of the present case.

5. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel assisted by Mr. Kaushik Sharkhel, submits that the order passed by the respondent University is absolutely illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner was appointed on 18.11.2011 and he was terminated on 30.5.2020. Therefore, the petitioner had worked almost for nine years. Learned counsel submits that after working for a considerable period in the respondent University, the petitioner cannot be terminated from service without holding a regular departmental proceeding. On merit also, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had the requisite qualification as stipulated in the advertisement, which was calculated by the earlier Executive Council at the time of filling up the application form by the petitioner. Later on, the respondents have tried to question the interpretation arrived by the earlier Executive Council regarding the calculation of experience. Learned counsel also submits that it is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner has obtained appointment by forging any document or by giving any misrepresentation, rather, the case of the respondents is that in case of any inadvertent mistake in the process of selection which may be detected, the University reserves the right to cancel any communication made to the candidate, which is evident from last paragraph of the impugned order itself. Moreover, the advertisement itself stipulated that the University may relax the qualification / experience and age limit at its discretion at any stage in case of candidates with exceptional merit. Learned couns