The Allahabad High Court has observed that in the cases of appointment, if there is no instance of misrepresentation or misconduct, the selection cannot be cancelled after a long period of time. It was stressed that in case of any shortcomings in the selection, action must be taken expeditiously.

In that context, the Bench of Justice Attau Rahman Masoodi and Justice Om Prakash Shukla observed that, "once a selection is duly made, then in case there is any shortcomings in the said selection which is of such a nature that the same cannot be condoned, action has to be taken expeditiously. In the present case, there is no allegation that the writ petitioner/private respondent had misrepresented about their educational qualifications or their experience or where in any manner misconducted themselves in obtaining selection in the University. In absence of any fraud or misrepresentation having been committed by the writ petitioner/private respondent, the selection cannot be cancelled after long period of seven years."

Counsel Atul Kumar Dwivedi appeared for the appellant, while CSC Vijay Dixit appeared for the respondent.

In 2014, teachers were selected at Dr. Shakuntala Mishra National Rehabilitation University through a rigorous process, which included screening and interviews, resulting in their appointment and confirmation. However, the university later annulled these selections, citing irregularities during the tenure of the former Vice-Chancellor. An inquiry revealed deviations from appointment rules, such as issues with qualifications and reservation procedures.

A committee tasked with investigating all appointments made during the previous Vice-Chancellor's tenure recommended cancelling the teachers' selections. The Executive Council formed another committee, which proposed terminating their services. Despite their years of service, the university suggested the teachers could reapply in a fresh advertisement with protected pay if selected.

The teachers challenged their termination through a writ petition. A Single Judge quashed the termination orders, directing reinstatement with consequential benefits.

The petitioners contested the judgments on various grounds, including the maintainability of the writ petition, incorrect findings on rule applicability, flaws in the university's decision-making, and violations of the Dr. Shakuntala Mishra National Rehabilitation University Act, 2009.

The cancellation of the selection was argued as justified due to the lack of essential qualifications, and the counsel criticized the judgment for alleged errors in interpreting misconduct, adjudicating termination grounds, and demanding complete enquiry reports.

The Court observed that that the most crucial and significant issue for determination was as to whether the writ petitioners did actually fulfil the minimum eligibility qualifications for recruitment to various posts to which they were appointed.

It was observed that, "the learned Single Judge has not only scanned through the various qualifications possessed by these writ petitioners, but has in a very objective manner dealt with the allegation of not possessing the essential qualification in the impugned order."

In light of the same, it was observed that, "this Court does not find any plausible grounds agitated by the appellants/University to have any substance and as such this court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge."

Subsequently, the appeals were dismissed.


Appellant: Counsel Atul Kumar Dwivedi

Respondent: CSC Vijay Dixit

Cause Title: Dr. Shakuntala Mishra National Rehabilitation vs Dr. Rajendra Kumar Srivastava & Anr.

Click here to read/download the Judgment