Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

14. In addition to above, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in the present case there is no disclosure in the impugned order that the petitioners had played fraud or had submitted forged documents or that they were not otherwise eligible for the post. Therefore, as there was no fault on the part of the petitioners and the selection process was concluded after due advertisement of the posts, there was no valid reason for the University or for the State-respondent to treat the appointment of the petitioners as illegal or void and cancel the same without even providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that since the appointments were made in the Engineering College when, at that time, it was not a University, the appointment procedure was governed by Model bye-laws governing the Engineering College. It has been submitted that under the bye-laws, appointments were to be made upon recommendation of the Selection Committee and the Selection Committee, for the post of Group C and Group D, was to be constituted as per the direction of the Principal/Director of the Engineering College. It has been submitted that the appointments were made upon recommendation made by the Selection Committee which was duly constituted by the then Principal of the Engineering College, therefore, the appointments were not void or illegal which could be cancelled without opportunity of hearing. It has also been submitted that had opportunity of hearing been given to the petitioners before cancellation of their appointment, they could have satisfied the authorities that the appointments were legal and valid and that they call for no interference.