ORDER 1. The petitioners by this writ petition, have prayed that the impugned minutes of the Executive Council dated 5.2.1995 (Annexure P/1) in para 3 (b) may be quashed. 2. Both the petitioners who are lawyers by profession, were appointed as Examiners of LL.B. Supplementary Examination, 1994, held by the respondent No.4-Rani Durgawati Vishwavidyalaya, Jabalpur. The answer-books of the aforesaid examinations were sent to the petitioners. Both the petitioners after duly examining those answer books and awarding of marks given to the examinees in those answer books, submitted the same to the respondent No.4-University. On 7.2.1995 the petitioners read in Hindi Daily News Paper of Jabalpur, 'Dainik Bhaskar' that the Executive Council of the respondent No. 4 University, has black-listed the petitioners for being made Examiners of the University for ever on the grounds that both the petitioners have increased the marks of Examinees in the answer-books submitted by them on the advice of respondent No.5-Prof. J.K. Pandey. The petitioners made an enquiry from the Prof. J.K. Pandey about the details of the case, but he did not know anything about it and that he himself was surprised on reading the news items in the papers. Shri Pandey subsequently informed the petitioners that he has received an order dated 6.2.1995 from the University stating that he has violated the Rules relating to examinations and he has been removed with immediate effect from all works regarding University Examinations. 3. The petitioners state that they checked up the agenda of the meeting of the Executive Council dated 5.2.1995, but there was no such item in the agenda. Thereafter, the University published the impugned minutes of the Executive Council dated 5.2.1995, and one of the item in para 3 (b) of the Minutes reads as under :- "The Kulpati made known to the Hon'ble Members the things regarding violation of purity and secrecy of valuation of answer books, in the Supplementary Examination of LL.B. Parts I, II and III, 1994". After examining the documents, it was decided: (i) xxx xxx xxx (ii) The term of appointment of Shri A.P. Shukla (petitioner No.1) who is appointed as Part-time Lecturer in University Teaching Department of Law, eighty-nine days shall not be extended so as to make him free from his service on completion of the term and that he is also removed from all work of examination of the University for ever." (iii) Shri Anil Kumar Pandey (Petitioner No.2) be also removed from all work of University Examinations for ever." The aforesaid decision was taken on the basis of the note prepared by the Deputy Registrar regarding violation of purity and secrecy of valuation in LL.B. Supplementary Examination, 1994. Aggrieved against the aforesaid news item as also the decision taken by the Executive Council of the university, both the petitioners have filed this writ petition making a grievance that the order/minute in question passed by the Executive Council is in violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioners have made an allegation of bias against Shri J.P. Shukla, who is Vice-Chancellor of the University. I am not examining the allegations as this petition can be disposed of on shortest ground. 4. A reply has been filed by the University and the University has said in the reply that certain deficiencies were found in the answer-books and on the basis of deficiencies, it was found that some bungling had been done and after being satisfied with this, the University has resolved not to continue the petitioners as Examiner. The allegation of malafide against the Vice-chancellor has been denied. 5. The petitioner No. I apart from being an Advocate, appointed as a part-time Lecturer in the University in faculty of law and this appointment has also been terminated. The learned counsel for the respondent-University has placed before me the original answer books as well as mark-sheet. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record. 7. A reading of the resolution which has been reproduced above and the publication of news item in the news paper certainly cast a serious aspersion on the working of both the petitioners and lower down their image in public. The petitioners have been found to have committed a serious violation of purity and secrecy of the answer books and this causes serious aspersion on their reputation in the society. The petitioners have been found to have committed a serious violation of purity and secrecy of the answer books and this causes serious aspersion on their reputation in the society. No person can be condemned unheard. Unfortunately, this basic norms appears to have been totally missed by the University and they have passed a resolution on their own without calling upon their comments. So far as the competence of the Executive Council for debarring the petitioner is concerned that cannot be doubted as the Statute 29 of Clause 12 (3) of the Madhya Pradesh Vishwavidayalaya Adhiniyam, 1973, which reads as under: "Cl. 12 (3) : An examiner may be discontinued any time even before the expiry of the three years period if his work is found unsatisfactory." Therefore, there is no doubt about the competence of the Executive Council to discontinue any examiner before the expiry of period of three years if his work is found to be unsatisfactory. But before the charge of unsatisfactory work and thereby depriving of the examiner from further examiner ship, it does cause a scerious aspersion on his reputation and such condonation cannot be caused unless the examiner is given basic and minimum requirement of being heard in the matter. This basic tenet has been completely lost sight of by the University and its Executive Council. It is true that Statute No. 29, the examiner may be a teacher in the University or may not be a teacher in the University, but it applies to all the examiner and whenever such serious action is being taken, at least the requirement of principle of natural justice should be observed and whatever material on record is available on which the University found the examiner to be lacking in examining the answer books should be made known to him and examiner should at least be asked to give its comments if not any personal hearing and this requirement has not been followed by the University in the present case. In some what identical situation this Court has an occasion to examine the discontinuation of examinership of Ravi Shanker University and by referring to clause 12 (3) of Statute, this Court, in the case of Dr. N.C. Rathi v. Ravishaukar University & others ( 1991 MPLJ 60 = 1990 (II) MPWN 87), has held that the principles of natural justice should be observed before such action is taken. N.C. Rathi v. Ravishaukar University & others ( 1991 MPLJ 60 = 1990 (II) MPWN 87), has held that the principles of natural justice should be observed before such action is taken. This Court further held as under: "Before taking any action in terms of sub-clause (3) of Clause 12 of Statute 29, the authority of the University is required to reach an objective satisfaction as to the examiner's work being unsatisfactory. At that stage, participation of the examiner concerned is necessary, as he is entitled to show cause and defend himself against the action. The University authorities in that event are bound to follow the rules of natural justice, allowing the affected person an opportunity of hearing. What such an opportunity would include, may depend upon the circumstances of a given case and charge levelled." Therefore, this proposition is well settled by this Court and there is no two opinion in the matter that before condemning such person, the principles of natural justice should be followed. Hence, I allow the petition and quash the order passed by the Executive Council debarring both these petitioners from future examinership as well as the appointment of the petitioner No. 1 as part-time lecturer. If any salary has been deprived of to the petitioner No. 1 on account of this order, the salary shall be paid to him. However, this will be subject to decision of University if it proposed to hold enquiry after giving them show cause notice and hearing them and then deciding the matter. 8. The petition is accordingly allowed and consequently, the minutes dated 2.3.1995 (Annexure p/1) in para 3 (b) is quashed. No order as to costs.