R. A. MEHTA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner had applied for the post of Assistant Inspector of Motor Vehicles and he was selected for the appointment by the Gujarat Public Service Commission in pursuance of the interview letter dated th July 1980 and that letter required the petitioner to bring the original certificates at the time of the interview and one of them was Diploma in Automobile Engineering/certificate in Automobile Engineering/national Apprenticeship certificate. The petitioner had produced the certificate in Diploma in Engineering warded to him by the Standard Institute of Automobile Engineering Baroda. The petitioner had also-produced the certificate of having undergone a training course as craft instructor in the trade of Motor mechanic from the National Council for Training in vocational trades. On the basis of these certificates and the interview he was selected and appointed as Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector on probation. ( 2 ) IT appears that on some application and allegation that the petitioner had obtained the appointment by producing bogus certificates. Some inquiry was directed to be made and the Chief Inspector of C. I. D. Crimes Gujarat had made a report to the State Government on 3. 9. 84 (Annexure G ). In that report in paras 3 and 4 it is found as follows:"on making inquiry about the allegations made in the application it appears to be true that Kantilal Patel who is serving at Bharuch has obtained certificates from Standard Institute of Automobile Engineering and the experience certificate as Foreman from Diploma in Engineering. In this regard inquiry was made at the office of the Director of Technical Education Vadodara. This institute is not Government recognised. However such institute (course) can be conducted without the recognition of the Government and issue certificate. Therefore on inquiry being made with the Gujarat Public Service Commission as to on which certificate the selection of Shri Patel was made it is disclosed that he produced the certificate from Central Training Institute of Bombay regarding Craft Instruction in Trade (Motor Mechanic ). This certificate is recognised as educational qualification and on that basis his selection for appointment was made. " Shri K. A. Patel has undergone the course of Central Training Institute for Instructor as Motor Mechanic; the institute is run by Government of India at Bombay. At present this institute is known as Advance Training Institute in which Shri Patel had taken training. " Shri K. A. Patel has undergone the course of Central Training Institute for Instructor as Motor Mechanic; the institute is run by Government of India at Bombay. At present this institute is known as Advance Training Institute in which Shri Patel had taken training. Therefore there appears to be no irregularly in appointment". ( 3 ) INSPITE of the above after about 7 years by an order dated 17. 8. 91 Annexure H to the petition the petitioners service came to be terminated. The order states that unless his probationary appointment is confirmed in writing the period of probation is deemed to have been extended automtaically and since the petitioner has not been informed in writing about the completion of his period of probation the same stood extended. It is further stated that it had-come to the notice that the petitioner was not possessing required educational qualifications at the time of his selection and appointment and therefore his probation is not treated as having been completed and his service were terminated with immediate effect under section 33 (A) of the Bombay Civil Service Rules by tendering one months pay as notice pay. ( 4 ) THIS termination is challenged mainly on the ground that after such an unduly and unexplained long period and delay this could not have been done by the Government. Reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of N. D. Majeethia vs. Slate of Gujarat reported in 1985 GLH NOC page 23 wherein it is observed as under:"after having appointed the employee to a post or having taken certain duties from him it is not open to the employer to contend that the employee does not possess the necessary qualification to hold that post or to perform those duties. The question of qualification has to be considered while making the appointment or entrusting duties. After the appointment the question of necessary qualification cannot be allowed to be raised". WE are with utmost respect unable to agree with such a wide proposition of law. If the appointment is illegal or contrary to recruitment rules it does not become legal merely because appointment is already made. It is open to the authority to set aside illegality or even before any Court were to say so. If the Court can. WE are with utmost respect unable to agree with such a wide proposition of law. If the appointment is illegal or contrary to recruitment rules it does not become legal merely because appointment is already made. It is open to the authority to set aside illegality or even before any Court were to say so. If the Court can. set aside an illegal appointment or an appointment made contrary to the recruitment rules there is no reason why the authority itself cannot correct that illegal appointment or rectify its mistake. A person cannot said to have acquired a vested right in his illegal appointment. We are unable to agree with the aforesaid proposition of law". ( 5 ) RELIANCE is also placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of Vipur S. Baxi and Another vs. State of Gujarat and Others. reported in 1988 (1) GLH UJ (1) page 34. In that case the petitioners were appointed eventhough their names were not called for from the Employment Exchange. However the employees had continued in the employment for about 5-6 years and their service were sought to be terminated on the ground that their namer were not called through Employment Exchange. The Court came to the conclusion that it was not the case of the respondent authority that the petitioner had made some misrepresentation or were appointed to favour them and after such a long lapse of time of five to six years. ( 6 ) SUCH appointments could not have been cancelled. In the present case the appointment was made in the year 1981. The so called irregularity was brought to the notice of the Government in 1983 and inquiry was made and the report of the C. I. D. (Crime) was received in the year 1984 and no action thereafter has been taken. According to that report there was no irregularity in the appointment. If the Government was of the opinion that this police opinion was not correct then some action was required to be taken at that time. But after another lapse of 7 years the Government cannot be permitted to take action on the basis of the defect in the appointment in the year 1981. If the Government was of the opinion that this police opinion was not correct then some action was required to be taken at that time. But after another lapse of 7 years the Government cannot be permitted to take action on the basis of the defect in the appointment in the year 1981. If that appointment was called in question in any Court after 10 years no court of law justice or equity would have granted any relief of setting aside that appointment and the Court would have refused to go into the merits of the case even if there be a case on merits. Similarly the Government also cannot wake up from the slumber after period of long years and take action after a decade. ( 7 ) ON this short point this petition must succeed and is allowed accordingly. However we make it clear that by this judgment we do hold that he was qualified to be appointed and will be treated as qualified for future appointments and promotions. Rule is made absolute by quashing and setting aside the impugned order of termination Annexure H dated 17th August 1991 petition Allowed. .