JUDGMENT :

1. The challenge has been made in this bunch of writ petitions to the order of cancellation of selection resulting in termination of their services vide dated 06/07/2022 passed by the respondent University after conducting an enquiry. The common ground for cancellation of their selection was the lack of essential qualifications at the time of their selection with regard to their educational qualifications in the year 2014.

2. In the present bunch of writ petitions all the petitioners are teachers having been selected in the Dr. Shakuntala Mishra National Rehabilitation University pursuant to the advertisement dated 17/02/2014. They submitted relevant documents with regard to the qualifications and appeared before a screening committee, and subsequently appeared in the interview before the selection committee which recommended their candidature for appointment. The recommendations were duly placed before the Executive Council of the University pursuant to which they were appointed and were continuing till their services were terminated by means of the impugned orders in the respective writ petitions.

3. The bunch of the cases have been heard together and are being decided together by a common judgment as the issues involved are common except the aspect pertaining to the respective educational qualifications.

4. The impugned orders of cancellation of selection have been passed by the Vice Chancellor of Dr. Shakuntala Mishra National Rehabilitation University, Lucknow which very candidly recites that in the 5th meeting of the General Body an enquiry was instituted against the previous Vice Chancellor Dr Nishith Rai and all the charges against him were proved and he was found guilty of administrative and financial irregularities. After seeking legal opinion, it was decided that all the appointments made during his tenure would be enquired on a case-to-case basis. It further states that the executive committee had appointed a three-member committee which has submitted its report where it has been found that the appointments were made without following the rules of reservation, and no approval was sought from the visitor for appointment of the panel of experts and that persons were appointed despite the fact that they did not have the requisite API score which was contrary to the rules.

5. The Executive Council in its 35th meeting held on 07/10/2021 decided to constitute a 2-member committee consisting of 2 retired Judges of the High Court to enquire into all the appointments made by the erstwhile Vice Chancellor. The enquiry was conducted by the said committee who submitted their report which was placed before the Executive Council and was duly approved in its 38th meeting.

6. Show cause notice was given to the petitioners seeking their response. The response was placed before another committee consisting of a retired High Court Judge and subject specialist namely Professor Dhananjai Yadav, in Charge of the Recruitment Cell, Allahabad Central University, Prayagraj. The committee made its recommendations on 9.6.2022 to the University, which was accepted by the executive committee. The committee concluded that the petitioners did not fulfil the prescribed qualifications on the date of the advertisement and hence their services were terminated. It was further provided that considering that all the petitioners have worked for a period of 6–7 years, they would be eligible to apply in the fresh advertisement which would be issued and in case they are selected, their pay and allowances would be protected.

7. Sri Sudeep Seth, Senior advocate appearing for the respondent University raised preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the writ petitions. He submitted that the Uttar Pradesh Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 were applicable on the respondent University, which provide for an alternative remedy of appeal against the order of termination, while the petitioners have straight-away approached this