JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) WE have heard this matter extensively but we would say at the very outset itself that the main contentions pressed by the State Counsel, Shri J. S. L. Sinha, to support States action in these cases, heard analogously, has not appealed to us in the least. ( 2. ) WE do not read anything in the common order (Annexure P-5) to take the view that the action of the State can be deemed as an "act of State" or that such an action could be taken in the derogation of the statutory provisions occupying the field. Shri Sinha has laid strong emphasis on the right of the State to pre-empt any action that could be taken by the statutory "screening Committee" constituted under the relevant rules namely. Madhya Pradesh Educational Service (Collegiate Branch) Recruitment rules, 1967, for short, the Rules. We are indeed compelled to repel Shri Sinhas ingenious contention by stating only the elementary principle of jurisprudence that there can be no "act of State" against citizens. (See, Memon Haji Ismail, AIR 1958 SC 1383, Promod Chandra, AIR 1962 SC 1288 , Vora Fiddali, AIR 1964 SC 1043 , Madhav rao Scindia, AIR 1971 SC 530 ). Indeed, the law that "taking over" of private colleges within the country could not be "act of State" was rather given effect to by the State government by enacting the said Rules, framed under Article 309 of the Constitution. ( 3. ) IT is not disputed that factually and actually the popularly called Pohari college (Laxmi Saraswati, Gopal, Krishna Mahavidyalaya, Pohari) was non-grantee college and that it came to be taken over by the State on and from 1-2-1987, which date was changed to 15-2-1987 to make it notionally the take- over date. However, before that, by Annexure P-5. on 20-1-1987. State arrogated to itself the function which had to be exercised by the "screening Committee" envisaged under the Rules aforesaid. Indeed, without disclosing in the said order any reason or rationale for its action services of several teachers and others already in employment of the College were dealt with arbitrarily, throwing them on the street as if the action was being taken in a foreign territory. No wonder, therefore, justification for this pure and simple executive act is sought in the doctrine of "act of State". No wonder, therefore, justification for this pure and simple executive act is sought in the doctrine of "act of State". For this misadventure, we would not permit the misconceived plea to succeed in this Court. ( 4. ) WHAT has impressed us in this case is the fact that appointments of the several petitioners, namely. Rajendra Singh Thakur, Sudhir Dixit, B. L. Joshi and R. S. Dandotiya, in Misc. Petitions Nos. 163. 165. 170 and 171 of 1987 were made in regular course of business, as per provisions of the University Statute. That position is projected in the Advertisement. Annexure R/5-1 and also in two letters, Annexures R/5-2 and r/5-3. It appears clear from these letters that there was a proper selection of candidates for the teaching posts to which the petitioners were appointed. The Selection committee had held meetings on several dates, on 27/28/30-8-1984 and experts deputed by the University took part in those meetings. That Selection Committee selected the petitioners to hold teaching posts in different subjects and the decision of the Selection committee was communicated to the Registrar of the University vide Annexure R/5-2. ( 5. ) IT appears from Annexure R/5-3 that on 24-5-1985 the Registrar of the university intimated to the State Government in the Collegiate Education Department its decision approving the selection and appointment of the several petitioners. We have no doubt, therefore, that when the impugned order, Annexure P-5, was passed the several petitioners were duly qualified to hold teaching posts in the Pohari College which was then a non-grantee College managed by a managing committee, represented by Respondent No. 5, and that their appointments had been duly made in accordance with the University Statute. As a result, they had the eligibility and entitlement to be considered for absorption in Government service, as per Rules, when the college came to be taken over by State Government from 1st or 15th of February, 1987. ( 6. ) WE do not think if in any view of law, and facts of the case, the right of the petitioners could be defeated by Annexure P-5. Indeed, the selection and appointment of the petitioners being made in 1984 and only in Feburary 1985 new appointments (before take-over) being interdicted by State as per Annexure R/5-6 it is inconceivable how the State can claim validity for the action taken as per Annexure P-5, much later, in 1987. Indeed, the selection and appointment of the petitioners being made in 1984 and only in Feburary 1985 new appointments (before take-over) being interdicted by State as per Annexure R/5-6 it is inconceivable how the State can claim validity for the action taken as per Annexure P-5, much later, in 1987. We have no hesitation, therefore, to hold that their dismissal from services being at the behest of the State Government by an arbitrary executive fiat that position cannot be allowed to stand as the action of the State Government is violative not only of the provisions of the relevant Rules but also principles of natural justice. Indeed, petitioners unholy dismissal from service cannot even stand the constitutional cavil of articles 14, 16 and 21 because of arbitrary selection (for retaining in service) only few preferred members of the teaching staff, by excluding the petitioners, and doing so without disclosing reasons for such selection. We need refer only to the relevant holdings, in this connection, of the Apex Court, in such cases as, Vijay Narayan ( AIR 1980 SC 840 ), E. P. Royappa ( AIR 1974 SC 555 ), D. S. Nakara ( AIR 1983 SC 130 ) and olga Tellis ( AIR 1986 SC 180 ). ( 7. ) WE have taken consistently the view in these matters, approving Manoj shrivastava ( 1986 MPLJ 404 = 1986 JLJ 176 ), that when a person is duly qualified to hold a post and is already serving in the College on a post, on the date when the college is taken over by the State, then he has a statutory right for consideration for absorption by the Screening Committee in accordance with the statutory provisions of the relevant rules aforesaid. That being the position, it is difficult to deny the petitioners the benefit of our consistent holding in several cases. ( 8. ) ACCORDINGLY, we have no hesitation to hold that the several petitioners are entitled to be taken back in service so that their cases may be placed for consideration of the Screening Committee and to be dealt with by Screening Committee in accordance with the relevant Rules. We direct accordingly that the several petitioners be taken back in service and they be allowed to continue in service till such time until the Screening committee takes adverse decision, against them, so as not to absorb them. We direct accordingly that the several petitioners be taken back in service and they be allowed to continue in service till such time until the Screening committee takes adverse decision, against them, so as not to absorb them. Until that decision is taken by the Screening Committee their services still not be terminated and they shall be allowed to serve in the respective posts which they had been holding prior to being asked to go home as a result of the order Annexure P-5. ( 9. ) IN the result, all the four petitions succeed to the extent hereinabove indicated. We do not propose to saddle costs on the petitioners against respondent No. 2, whom shri S. K. Dubey, Advocate, represents, though he submits the said respondent has been wrongly impleaded because the petitioners are out of employment. Indeed, we have not made any order as to costs even against the State by which the petitioners could be benefited. ( 10. ) THIS order shall also govern Misc. Petitions Nos. 165, 170 and 171 of 1987. Outstanding amount of security, if any, shall be refunded to the petitioners in each case. Order accordingly.