The principle of natural justice must be followed in cases where the appointment cancellation carries civil consequences, and proper opportunity of hearing must be provided to the affected party.

JUDGMENT

1. This petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India whereby the petitioner is seeking quashment of the W.P.No.3083/2017 communication dated 26/31.08.2016 (Annexure-P/18) and 07.12.2016 (Annexure-P/22).

2. As per the facts of the case, the petitioner was initially appointed as Stenographer (Hindi) vide order dated 07.12.1995 in the respondent-University. Vide order dated 13.02.2001 he was extended the benefit of minimum of the payscale of the post of Stenographer and w.e.f. 01.01.1996 he was granted the benefit of V Pay Commission and of VI Pay Commission vide order dated 22.10.2012. The petitioner has claimed that since 1995, he was working in the respondent- University and was being given the pay-scale of a Stenographer. On 05.04.2012 the respondent-University issued a notice inviting the applications for appointment on various posts from the eligible candidates. The petitioner applied for the post of Section Officer in EMMRC (Electronic Multi Media Research Centre) in the general category which was advertised on a pay-scale of Rs.9300-34800 + 4200 Grade Pay. As per the requisite qualification prescribed in the advertisement, the candidate should have Second Class Bachelor Degree/Master Degree in any subject preferably Degree in Law or Post Graduation Diploma in Personnel Management with five years of experience as Senior Administration Assistant. As per the petitioner, the appointments were to be made in view of the provisions of the Central Universities Act, 2009 (in short 'Act, 2009'). In pursuance to which, the respondent-University has laid down the manner of appointment and emoluments of the employees other than teachers and other academic staff in their draft Ordinance. The appointment had to be made by the Executive Council or by the Vice Chancellor as per the provisions of the Ordinance. As per the petitioner, the Executive Council is the principal Executive body of the University as per the provisions of Section 21(1) of Act, 2009. As per the petitioner, he fulfilled all the essential eligibility criteria as per the advertisement for appointment on the post of Section Officer and as such he submitted his application on 14.05.2012. On the date of submitting the application, the petitioner was working on the post of Stenographer in the University and his application form was duly endorsed and forwarded by the respondents. The respondent-University as per the provisions of Ordinance-17 relaxed certain conditions and provided benefit to other candidates who applied for the post of Section Officer in EMMRC. As per the petitioner, out of 14 applications, only 8 were found suitable and as such they were issued call letters to appear in the written examination. The petitioners call letter dated 29.01.2013 was also issued asking him to appear in the written examination. Thereafter he was subjected to interview and finally his name was recommended for appointment to the post of Section Officer. The recommendation of the Selection Committee for the said post was placed before the Executive Council of the respondent-University for its approval. The Executive Council in its meeting approved the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Section Officer and accordingly he was appointed on a pay scale of Rs.9300-34800 + 4200 Grade Pay. The order of appointment was issued on 16.09.2013 (Annexure-P/8). The petitioner joined in pursuance to the said order of appointment and thereafter on 22.02.2014 a corrigendum was issued whereby the Grade Pay of the petitioner was corrected from 4200 to 4600/- in terms of pay scale recommended by the Central Government.

3. Thereafter, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice on 21.05.2014 issued by respondent No.3 alleging that the petitioner did not fulfill the requisite qualification for appointment on the post of Section Officer, therefore, he was asked to submit a reply within three days as to why his appointment on the post of Section Officer be not