ORDER 1. Petitioners, who were appointed as lecturers, have filed this petition challenging termination orders of their services dated 6th September 2005 on the basis of allegation that the selection committee which selected the petitioners as lecturers, was illegal. 2. Lakshmibai College of Physical Education, Gwalior, was established on 17.8.1957 by Shri Radhakrishnan with a total strength of 27 students in Bachelor of Physical Education. At that time it was affiliated to Vikram University, Ujjain. In the year of 1963, two years Master Degree Course in Physical Education was commenced and in 1864 the college was affiliated to Jiwaji University, Gwalior. In 1976 it was granted national status and renamed as "Lakshmibai National College of Physical Education". In 1982, recognising its unique character and to facilitate its further growth the college was granted autonomous status by the Jiwaji University and in 1983 a Master of Philosophy (M.Phil.) Degree has been introduced in Physical Education in the Col1cge. On 1.5.1987 the College was merged with the Sports Authority of India and on 2.9.1995 the Government of India, Ministry of HRD, on recommendations of University Grants Commission granted 'Deemed University' status to the College and renamed it as "Lakshmibai National Institute of Physical Education, Gwalior". Subsequently, the college was transferred to a society constituted on 24.4.2001 named as "Lakshmibai National Institute of Physical Education Society". It has been mentioned in the memorandum of association that the Society will follow all the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Societies Act, 1973 because the society was registered under the provisions of the aforesaid Act. As per the initial registration certificate, the management of the Institute was entrusted to various authorities as mentioned in the rules named as "Rules of the Lakshmihai National Institute of Physical Education, Gwalior" (hereinafter called as "the Rules of the Institute"). 3. The officers of the Institute initiated a process for appointments of lecturers and Government of India, by relaxing the ban on appointments, granted permission for tilling up ten vacant posts of teaching staff in the Institute vide order dated 8th February 2002, copy of the order has been tiled as Annexure P-4. Before granting the permission, on 24.3.2000 an advertisement was issued by the Institute for appointments on eleven posts of lecturers in weekly "Employment News". Before granting the permission, on 24.3.2000 an advertisement was issued by the Institute for appointments on eleven posts of lecturers in weekly "Employment News". Subsequently, on 6.12.2001 another advertisement for appointments on twelve posts of lecturers was issued in weekly "Employment News" inviting applications for appointments on the posts of lecturers. It was mentioned in the advertisement that the persons who had already applied for the post in pursuance to the earlier advertisement need not apply again and their applications would also be considered. 4. In pursuance to the advertisement the petitioners applied for the posts of lecturers. A selection committee was constituted in terms of rule 13 of the Rules of the Institute. The Minister of the Department of Youth Affairs, Government of India, was the President of the Institute, hence he nominated experts as per rule 13 vide order dated 11th April 2001 and the selection committee constituted was as under (copy of the order of constitution of selection committee dated 11th April 2001 is tiled as Annexure R-2) : (1) Dr. J.S. Naruka, Director, LNIPE, as Chairman; (2) Shri Shailendra Sharma, Chairman, TTTI, Western Region, Shamla Hills, Bhopal, - as Member; (3) Dean of Faculty/Head of Deptt./Chairman, Board of Studies, provided he/she is a Professor - as Member; (4) Shri B.S. Rathore, Coordinator, Physical Education, Rajasthan University, Jaipur - as Member; (5) Mrs. Sudarshan Pathak, Deputy Director of Physical Education, Delhi University, Delhi - as Member. 5. Dr. K.K. Verma, the then Vice-Chancellor of the Institute, who was appointed in August 2001, changed two members of the selection committee, i.e., Dr. T.C. Kundu and Prof. R.K. Bangad. Dr. K.K. Verma, the then Vice-Chancellor himself did not participate in the meeting as Chairman. The reason put forth by him is that, because his daughter was appearing in the selection for the post of lecturer hence he himself did not participate in the meeting. The Vice-Chancellor suo motu inducted Dr. T.C. Kundu in place of Mrs. Sudarshan Pathak and Prof. R.K. Bangad without taking permission from the Board of Management or from the President of the Institute. The meetings of the Committee were held on 16th and 17th of March 2002 and the selection committee selected the petitioners on the basis of interview only. The Vice-Chancellor suo motu inducted Dr. T.C. Kundu in place of Mrs. Sudarshan Pathak and Prof. R.K. Bangad without taking permission from the Board of Management or from the President of the Institute. The meetings of the Committee were held on 16th and 17th of March 2002 and the selection committee selected the petitioners on the basis of interview only. Consequently, on 8th May 2002 the appointment orders of the petitioners have been issued appointing them as lecturers in the Institute on the pay-scale of Rs.8,000-13,500 on temporary basis. 6. One Rajendra Tayal1iled a public interest litigation before this Court challenging the aforesaid appointments on the ground that selection process was illegal and contrary to law. That writ petition was registered as Writ Petition No. 450 of 2002. A Division Bench of this Court disposed of the said petition on 19.4.2004 with the following directions: "Petitioner shall submit a representation to respondent No.3 - Board of Management modifying the prayer claimed by him and raising necessary grievances along with copy of this petition. Respondent No.3 - Board of Management shall consider the representation and after hearing the affected party it shall decide the representation within a period of six months from the date of submission of the representation. However, any of the parties aggrieved with the action of respondent No.3 will have a remedy to approach the appropriate forum against the decision of the Board of Management. A copy of the report be sent to the Registrar of this Court for compliance." 7. Consequently, Mr. Rajendra Tayal submitted a representation to the Institute and higher authorities for cancellation of appointments of the petitioners and thereafter the matter was reconsidered by the Board of Management in its meeting held on 30th May 2005 and it was found that the selection committee changed by the then Vice-Chancellor was contrary to the Rules of the Institute and a show cause notice dated 31.5.2002 was issued to the petitioners. The petitioners requested for supply of certain documents. However, those documents were not supplied to the petitioners. Thereafter, the petitioners filed reply and the Board of Management considered the reply of the petitioners, show cause notice and also the record and found that the selection committee which selected the petitioners on the posts of lecturer was illegal, contrary to rule 23 of MOA, hence the appointments of the petitioners were illegal and issued termination orders. Thereafter, the petitioners filed reply and the Board of Management considered the reply of the petitioners, show cause notice and also the record and found that the selection committee which selected the petitioners on the posts of lecturer was illegal, contrary to rule 23 of MOA, hence the appointments of the petitioners were illegal and issued termination orders. 8. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the Vice-Chancellor had power and authority to replace the members of the selection committee and he had done so bona fide, hence the selection committee was as per law. Learned senior counsel further submitted that no proper opportunity of hearing has been given to the petitioners before terminating their services, hence the order of termination is against the rule of natural justice and no malafide or charges of corruption have been levelled against the then Vice-Chancellor or the selection committee, hence even though there was some defect in constitution of the selection committee, that has been cured subsequently by the Board of Management, hence the services of the petitioners could not be terminated. Learned senior counsel also submitted that the petitioners were in employment before their selection and after serving near about three years their employment cannot be terminated because petitioners were selected after judging their merits. In support of his contention learned counsel relied upon the following judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court: (1) M.P. Special Police Establishment v. State of M.P. and others [ 2006(1) JLJ 91 = (2004)8 SCC 788 ]; (2) (1973)2 SCC 543 ; (3) State of U.P. v. Shatrughan Lal and another [ (1998)6 SCC 651 ]; (4) Inderpreet Singh Kahlon and others v. State of Punjab and others [(2006)5 SCC 273; (5) Kashinath Dikshita v. Union of India and others [ AIR 1986 SC 2118 ]; (6) S. Prakash and another v. K.M. Kurian and others [ AIR 1999 SC 2094 ]; and a judgment of the Court in (7) Rajendra Kumar Sharma v. Jiwaji University, Gwalior and two others [ 1999(1) MPJR 461 ]. 9. Contrary to this the learned senior counsel for respondents - Institute has vehemently argued that the selection committee which selected the petitioners was illegal and contrary to law. The Vice-Chancellor who had no power and authority of his own inducted two members in the selection committee in order to influence the selection. 9. Contrary to this the learned senior counsel for respondents - Institute has vehemently argued that the selection committee which selected the petitioners was illegal and contrary to law. The Vice-Chancellor who had no power and authority of his own inducted two members in the selection committee in order to influence the selection. He himself did not preside over the meeting of the selection committee and another person presided over the meeting. Hence, the selection of the petitioners is per se illegal. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the selection of the petitioners have never been approved by the President, who as per the Rules of the Institute had power and authority to appoint the members of the selection committee and he refused to give sanction to the approval of selection committee, hence appointments of the petitioners were per se illegal and has rightly been cancelled by the institute. Learned counsel further submitted that when the appointments are void ab initio it cannot be validated subsequently. 10. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents Institute in support of his contentions has relied upon the following judgments: (1) Rajendra Kumar Sharma v. Jiwaji University [ 1999(1) MPJR 461 ]; (2) Salam Mani Singh (Dr.) v. Lakshmibai National Institute of Physical Education and others [ 2002(2) JLJ 391 ]; (3) [1990(3) SLR 773]; (4) Gurdev Singh v. State of Punjab [1989(2) SLR 67]; (5) Union of India and others v. O.Chakradhar [ AIR 2002 SC 1119 = (2002)3 SCC 146 ]; (6) [(2002)3 SCC 7461; (7) Dr. Bhanu Prasad Panda v. Chancellor, Sambalpur University [ AIR 2001 SC 3324 = (2001)8 SCC 532 ]; (8) Harpal Kaur Chahai (Smt.) v. Director Punjab Instructions, Punjab and another [1995 Suppl.(4) SCC 706]; (9) [2002(2) MPJR. 11. In my opinion, the main point for consideration before this Court is that whether the selection committee which selected the petitioners was as per law or not or if there was any defect in the selection committee, whether subsequently it was rectified or not? 12. The Institute has its rules named as "Rules of Lakshmibai National Institute of Physical Education" (Deemed University) and on 20.7.2001 a new MOA (Memorandum of Association) has come into existence and at the time of interview which was held on 16th and 17th of March 2002 aforesaid MOA was applicable. 12. The Institute has its rules named as "Rules of Lakshmibai National Institute of Physical Education" (Deemed University) and on 20.7.2001 a new MOA (Memorandum of Association) has come into existence and at the time of interview which was held on 16th and 17th of March 2002 aforesaid MOA was applicable. Rule 5 of the Rules of Institute prescribes powers and composition of the Board of Management and Rule 5(a)(ii) gives powers to the Board of Management to create teaching and academic posts, to determine number, qualifications, and cadres thereof as approved by the University Grants Commission and the emoluments of such posts. Sub-rule (iii) of Rule 5(a) gives powers to appoint such professors, readers, lecturers and other academic staff as may be necessary on the recommendation of the selection committee. Composition of the Board of Management has been prescribed in Rule 5(b) and as per the aforesaid rule Vice-Chancellor or a Chairman appointed by the President of the Institute shall he the Chairman of the Board of Management. 13. Rule 12(ii)(b) prescribes selection committee for appointment of readers and lecturers, which reads as under: "(b) For appointment of readers and lecturers -- (i) Vice Chancellor of the Institute - Chairman (ii) A person nominated by the President of the Institute - Member (iii) Dean of Faculty/Head of Department/Chairman, Board of Studies, provided he is a professor or a reader - Member (iv) Two out side experts nominated by the President (from a panel of not less than six names recommended by the Board of Management) - Member." 14. From the above stated statutory provisions it is clear that the selection committee consists of the Vice-Chancellor of the Institute as Chairman, a person nominated by the President of the Institute as Member and two out side experts nominated by the President from a Panel recommended by the Board of Management as Members and one Dean of Faculty as a Member. Admittedly, at the time of selection there was no Dean of Faculty/Head of Department of Studies. In accordance with the aforesaid rules the President of the Institute vide order dated 11th April 2001, copy of which has been filed as Annexure P-2, constituted the following committee for the purpose of selection of lecturers: "(b) For appointment of readers and lecturers -- (i) Dr. In accordance with the aforesaid rules the President of the Institute vide order dated 11th April 2001, copy of which has been filed as Annexure P-2, constituted the following committee for the purpose of selection of lecturers: "(b) For appointment of readers and lecturers -- (i) Dr. J.S. Narukha - Chairman (ii) Shri Shailendra Sharma, Chairman, TTTI, - Member Western Region, Shamla Hills, Bhopal (Nominated by President LNIPE) (iii) Dean of Faculty/Head of Department - Member Chairman, Board of Studies, provided he/she is a professor or a reader (iv) Shri B.S. Rathore, Coordinator, - Member Physical Education, Rajasthan University, Jaipur (Nominated by President, LNIPE) (v) Mr. Sudarshan Pathak, - Member Deputy Director of Physical Education, Delhi University, Delhi (Nominated by President, LNIPE)." 15. This selection committee has been changed by the Vice-Chancellor on his own without any approval of any authority. First he himself did not participate in the proceedings of the selection committee and on his behalf Dr. Pramod Kumar Pandey presided over the selection committee as Chairman and in place of Mrs. Sudarshan Pathak, he inducted Dr. T.C. Kundu, out side expert and also inducted Prof. R.K. Bangad as a Member of SC/ST Strangely, no material has been placed before the Board of Management or this Court that under what circumstances the Vice-Chancellor changed Mrs. Sudarshan Pathak and inducted Dr. T.C. Kundu and also included Prof. R.K. Bangad as Member of SC/ST Neither any letter or explanation put forth by the Vice-Chancellor has been kept in the file. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondent - Institute has submitted that the Vice-Chancellor was from Kurukshetra University and he telephoned Dr. T.C. Kundu and Prof. R.K. Bangad and on his telephone both the aforesaid members participated as Members in the selection committee. During the course of arguments learned senior counsel, Mr. R.D. Jain, appearing on behalf of the petitioners informed the Court that Mrs. Sudarshan Pathak came to Gwalior for participation in the meeting but she fell ill, hence Dr. T.C. Kundu was inducted as Member of the committee by the Vice-Chancellor, but there is no such pleadings in the record of the case. In the opinion of this Court the conduct of the Vice-Chancellor speaks a volume about his intentions because the petitioners were selected on the basis of interview only. T.C. Kundu was inducted as Member of the committee by the Vice-Chancellor, but there is no such pleadings in the record of the case. In the opinion of this Court the conduct of the Vice-Chancellor speaks a volume about his intentions because the petitioners were selected on the basis of interview only. It is an admitted fact that the applications for the posts of lecturers were invited in the year 2001 and Dr. K.K. Verma was appointed as Vice-Chancellor in August 2001, certainly he had the knowledge that his daughter was appearing in the selection for the post of lecturer, hence, he could not participate in the meeting of the selection committee as Chairman' and inspite of that he had not informed the Board of Management and the President about his intention and appointment of another person in his place. Similarly, if the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted then also he had information that a person being a Member of SC/ST is necessary because appointments for SC/ST candidates were also had to be made inspite of that he had not informed the Board of Management and the President about the nomination of another expert and he himself inducted Prof. R.K. Bangad as Member. There is no material available on record that whether Mrs. Sudarshan Pathak came to Gwalior or not or under what circumstances she was replaced by Dr. T.C. Kundu. In my opinion, it speaks the evil mind of the then Vice-Chancellor. From the above circumstances it is clear that the then Vice-Chancellor, Dr. K.K. Verma was not acting in the interest of administration or to fill up some casualties arisen looking tot he circumstances. But, certainly, he was acting with some evil mind because the selection had been done on the basis of interview only. 16. From the above circumstances it is clear that the then Vice-Chancellor, Dr. K.K. Verma was not acting in the interest of administration or to fill up some casualties arisen looking tot he circumstances. But, certainly, he was acting with some evil mind because the selection had been done on the basis of interview only. 16. Rule 15(c)(ii) gives the power to the Vice-Chancellor, which reads as under : "(ii) The Vice-Chancellor may, if he is of the opinion that immediate action is called for on any matter, exercise any power conferred upon any authority of the institute under the Memorandum of the Association and the Rules and Regulations / Bye-Laws, take such action or proceed to take such action and shall report to the concerned authority on the action taken by him on such matters: Provided that if the authority concerned as mentioned in clause (i) above is of the opinion that such action ought not to have been taken, it may refer the matter to the President whose decision thereon shall be final." From the aforesaid rule it is clear that the Vice-Chancellor has no power and authority to usurp the powers of the President or the Board of Management. Admittedly, as quoted above, the power of appointment vests with the Board of Management and the power of composition of selection committee has been provided in Rule 12 of the Rules of the Institute and as per the aforesaid Rule the President of the Institute has a power to nominate a person and also two out side experts. If there was any contingency then it was the duty of the Vice-Chancellor to inform the Board of Management and President that he could not participate in the meeting of the selection committee and also Mrs. Sudarshan Pathak could not be available as an expert member and one member has also to be needed for SC/ST candidates and those persons to be appointed as per law. He did not take any action neither any letter/communication has been filed or put forth on record by the respondents and hence it can be concluded that there was no such letter/correspondence in the office. He did not take any action neither any letter/communication has been filed or put forth on record by the respondents and hence it can be concluded that there was no such letter/correspondence in the office. It is an admitted position of law that what was in mind of a person at a particular time cannot be read into but how a person has been influenced in making a decision can be inferred by the Court after taking note of circumstances at the time and circumstances mentioned above shows that the Vice-Chancellor had some evil design in his mind that is why he himself inducted two persons as members of the selection committee and Dr. Pramod Kumar Pandey presided over as Chairman of the selection committee. This act cannot be said to be as per law. 17. From the above facts it is clear that only Shri Shailendra Sharma and Shri B.S. Rathore were legally appointed members of the selection committee, all three members Dr. Pramod Kumar Pandey, Dr. T.C. Kundu and Prof. R.K. Bangad participated in the meeting of the selection committee unauthorisedly and illegally. 18. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Dr. Triloki Nath Singh v. Dr. Bhagwan Din Misra and others, reported in (1990)4 SCC 510 , affirming the judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which had quashed the appointment of reader in the University of Lucknow on account of the fact that the selection committee was not legally constituted and its recommendations should not be acted upon and the defect could not be cured subsequently, held as under: "The High Court while considering a similar argument made before it held that Explanation II could be availed by the Chancellor when he has drawn a fresh panel of experts in each subject of study under subsection (5)(a). The High Court further held that Explanation II cannot be divorced from the substantive provision contained in sub-section (5)(a). It cannot stand independently of and separate from the subsection. The Explanation must be read so as to harmonise and clear up any ambiguity in the main sub-section. The High Court thus concluded that Explanation II was wholly inapplicable to the instant case and the question had got to be determined whether the experts drawn out of the panel, under clauses 168 and 169 of the Statutes. The Explanation must be read so as to harmonise and clear up any ambiguity in the main sub-section. The High Court thus concluded that Explanation II was wholly inapplicable to the instant case and the question had got to be determined whether the experts drawn out of the panel, under clauses 168 and 169 of the Statutes. The High Court then observed that according to the prospectus of the University Linguistics was a separate subject of study in the University of Lucknow and the Chancellor had a panel of experts on Linguistics drawn under Statutes 168 and 169, the nomination of experts out of the panel drawn for the subject of Hindi suffered from a serious legal infirmity substantially affecting the constitution of the Selection Committee which could not have been cured by section 66(a) of the Act. ..... ..... ....." "The above provision laying down essential qualifications also goes to show that first or high second class degree and doctorate in the subject concerned was an essential qualification. As already mentioned above posts were mentioned separately for three readers in Hindi and one reader in Linguistics in the Department of Hindi. Explanation II could only apply in a case where the post of teacher to be selected was common to more than one subject of study. Advertisement nowhere provided that one reader in Linguistics in the Department of Hindi was to be selected as common to more than one subject of study. Merely because the post of reader in Linguistics was required in the Department of Hindi, it cannot be held that such reader in Linguistics was to teach the subject of Linguistics as well as the subject of Hindi language and literature. It may also be noted that from a perusal of the above advertisement along with the prospectus of the University clearly goes to show that for the post of reader in Linguistics it was necessary to have an essential qualification of first or high second class master's degree and doctorate in the subject of Linguistics. Explanation II can apply in a case where one common teacher is to be selected for more than one subject of study and in that contingency it provides that the expert may belong to either of such subjects of study. Explanation II can apply in a case where one common teacher is to be selected for more than one subject of study and in that contingency it provides that the expert may belong to either of such subjects of study. In the case in hand before us the advertisement did not mention that the post of one reader in Linguistics in the Department of Hindi was common with any other subject of study, thus the appointment of all the experts in the present case of subject of Hindi for the selection of one reader in Linguistics in the Department of Hindi was totally wrong and illegal. ..... ..... ....." Hon'ble the Supreme Court further in A. Umarani v. Registrar Cooperative Societies and others, reported in (2004)7 SCC 112 , has held as under with regard to appointments made by the cooperative societies and land development banks in violation of statutory rules and bye-laws and the duties of the society : "The cooperative societies and the land development banks are governed by the statutes under which they have been created as also the rules and bye-laws framed thereunder. The cooperative societies are obligated to follow the cooperative principles as laid down in the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. Provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder reflect the legislative appointment recruitment policy. The said provisions are, thus, mandatory in nature. No appointment, therefore, can be made in deviation of or departure from the procedures laid down in the said statutory rules." ..... ..... ....." Hon'ble the Supreme Court further in Suraj Prakash Gupta v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, reported in (2000)7 SCC 561 , has held as under: "The decisions of this Court have recently been requiring strict conformity with the Recruitment Rules for both direct recruits and promotees. The view is that there can be no relaxation of the basic or fundamental rules of recruitment." 19. From the above principles of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court and the legal provisions and the facts discussed above, I hold that constitution of the selection committee, which selected the petitioners, was illegal. 20. The next point for consideration is that whether by the subsequent acts of the Institute the defect of selection has been cured or not? From the above principles of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court and the legal provisions and the facts discussed above, I hold that constitution of the selection committee, which selected the petitioners, was illegal. 20. The next point for consideration is that whether by the subsequent acts of the Institute the defect of selection has been cured or not? For the aforesaid purpose the learned counsel for the petitioners invited attention of this Court with regard to minutes of the meeting of the Board of Management held on 7th of January 2005. In the aforesaid meeting the Board of Management has resolved as under with regard to defects in Selection Committee: "Appointments under rejoinder -- The Board perused observations of the Vice-Chancellor pertaining to appointments of lecturers and was of the view that the then Vice-Chancellor Dr. K.K. Verma had acted in good faith while deciding not to chair the meeting of the Selection Committee for the reason that his daughter was one of the candidates for the said post. Further, inclusion of one SC/ST member namely Prof. Bangaron the selection committee by the then Vice-Chancellor was also found in accordance with the existing guidelines as the recruitment was for SC and ST posts also. The then Vice-Chancellor also appears to have acted in good faith while inducting Dr. T.C. Kundu, as member on the Selection Committee as an additional member. The Board also noted that the Government's permission to fill-up 12 posts of lecturers was available for the purpose and all the candidates appointed were eligible in terms of educational qualification etc. In view of above, the Board decided to recommend to the competent authority, i.e., President of the Institute, for ex-post facto approval to the composition of Selection Committee with effect from the date of its composition. The Institute will apprise the Board of the decision taken by the competent authority in the matter." And also the meeting of the Board of Management dated 26th August 2004 in which appointments of experts in the Selection Committee for recruitment of teachers in the Institute has been approved. 21. The Institute will apprise the Board of the decision taken by the competent authority in the matter." And also the meeting of the Board of Management dated 26th August 2004 in which appointments of experts in the Selection Committee for recruitment of teachers in the Institute has been approved. 21. In my opinion, by the aforesaid resolution passed in the meeting of the Board of Management held on 7th January 2005 it cannot be held that the illegality of the selection committee has been cured because there is no such power vested under the rules of the Institute in the Board of Management. It is further clear from the resolution that the Board has submitted its recommendations to the President for approval and the President vide letter dated 27th May 2005 refused to grant permission. Hence, in such circumstances it cannot be said that the defects in the Selection Committee has been cured or approved. Apart from this, it has to be seen from the resolution of the Board that the Board has not assigned any reason that under what circumstances the then Vice-Chancellor Dr. K.K. Verma nominated the expert member and changed another person because that power as per the rules of the Institute was with the President and certainly the resolution of the Board cannot be said to be as per law. 22. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in B.S. Minhas v. Indian Statistical Institute and others, reported in (1983)4 SCC 582 , held as under: "The next question that arises for consideration is whether the appointment of respondent No.4 as Director of respondent No.1 is illegal because of non-compliance with bye-law 2. Bye-law 2 does require that before appointment, the vacancy in the post of Director should be suitably publicised. In the instant case, it is admitted on both sides that no publicity whatsoever was given in respect of the vacancy. The contention of Shri Garg, however, is that the bye-law having no force of statute, non-compliance with its requirement cannot in any way affect the appointment of respondent No.4 as Director of respondent No.1. Shri Tarkunde, however, contended that assuming that the bye-law is not statutory, even so respondent No.1 was bound to comply with it. In support of his contention he strongly relied upon Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India [ (1979)3 SCC 489 ]. Shri Tarkunde, however, contended that assuming that the bye-law is not statutory, even so respondent No.1 was bound to comply with it. In support of his contention he strongly relied upon Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India [ (1979)3 SCC 489 ]. The Court in that case held: (SCC p. 503, para 10) "It is a well settled rule of administrative law that an executive authority must be rigorously held to the standards by which it professes its actions to be judged and it must scrupulously observe those standards on pain in invalidation of an act in violation of them. This rule was enunciated by Mr. Justice Frankfurter in Vitarelli v. Seaton [359 US 535 : 4 LEd 2d 10 12 (1959)], where the learned judge said: An executive agency must be rigorously held to the standards by which it professes its action to be judged ... Accordingly, if dismissal from employment is based on a defined procedure, even though generous beyond the requirements that bind such agency, that procedure must be scrupulously observed ... This judicially evolved rule of administrative law is now firmly established and, if I may add, rightly so. He that takes the procedural sword shall perish with the sword." The aforesaid principle laid down by Mr. Justice Frankfurter in Vitarelli v. Sealon (supra), has been accepted as applicable in India by this Court in Amarjit Singh Ahluwalia v. State of Punjab [ (1975)3 SCC 503 ], and in subsequent decision given in Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi [ (1975) 1 SCC 421 ], Mathew, J. quoted the above referred observation of Mr. Justice Frankfurter with approval. In view of the pronouncement of this Court on the point it must be held to be obligatory on the part of respondent No.1 to follow the bye-laws, if the bye-laws have been framed for the conduct of its affairs to avoid arbitrariness. Respondent No.1 cannot, therefore, escape the liability for not following the procedure prescribed by bye-law 2." 23. Hence, the arguments advanced by the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that defect of the Selection Committee was cured cannot be accepted and it is also well settled principle of law that if an act is void abinitio that cannot be cured subsequently. 24. Hence, the arguments advanced by the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that defect of the Selection Committee was cured cannot be accepted and it is also well settled principle of law that if an act is void abinitio that cannot be cured subsequently. 24. The next point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that no proper opportunity of hearing has been given to the petitioners. This argument also cannot be accepted because a show cause notice was issued to the petitioners mentioning the fact that committee which selected the petitioner was illegal, the petitioners filed replies and from the record it is clear that the petitioners had no further explanation except to say that the defect was cured and the Vice-Chancellor had the authority. The aforesaid arguments have been negatived by this Court. Hence, in my opinion, in the present case, this Court cannot remand the matter back to the authorities as proper opportunity was given to the petitioners. 25. Further, arguments advanced by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners based on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Inderpreet Singh Kahlon and others v. State of Punjab and others [ 2006(5) SCALE 273 ], that on the basis of some infirmity in the selection, the appointments of the petitioners cannot be cancelled in mass. This argument cannot also be accepted because as stated earlier that the Selection Committee by which the petitioners were appointed was illegal and the then Vice-Chancellor deliberately with evil mind inducted certain persons and when the selection committee itself was illegal and the appointments have been made on the basis of interview only, certainly the appointments of the petitioners on the basis of the recommendations of the illegal Selection Committee cannot be said to be legal. In such circumstances, the facts of the case of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited by learned senior counsel are quite different because in that case there was some allegations of corruption with regard to appointments of judicial officers and this is not a case where the appointments were not made in accordance with rules prescribed. Hence, the aforesaid case is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 26. Hence, the aforesaid case is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 26. Another argument of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners that petitioners served in the Institute for near about three years and before that they were in service, hence they are entitled to continue in service can also not be accepted. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Teri Oat Estates (P) Ltd. v. U.T. Chandigarh [ (2004)2 SCC 130 ], has held as under with regard to sympathy: "36. We have no doubt in our mind that sympathy or sentiment by itself cannot be a ground for passing an order in relation whereto the appellants miserably fail to establish a legal right. It is further trite that despite an extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction contained in Article 142 of the Constitution of India, this Court ordinarily would not pass an order which would be in contravention of a statutory provision." The Hon'ble Supreme Court further approved the observations of Farewell, L.J. in Latham v. Richard Johnson and Nephew Ltd. [(1911-13) All ER Rep. 117], where the learned Judge has observed as under: "We must be very careful not to allow our sympathy with the infant plaintiff to affect our judgment. Sentiment is a dangerous will, I the wisp to take as a guide in the search for legal principles." Apart from this as noted earlier in this judgment the petitioners were selected on the basis of interview only and there was a smoke screen behind illegalities committed by the then Vice-Chancellor in change of selection committee. 27. Before parting with the case, in my opinion, the conduct of the then Vice-Chancellor, Dr. KK Verma, is suspicious and the Court gathered, the opinion that the authorities have not done enough to find out that what was the motive of Dr. K.K Verma or what were the reasons behind committing illegalities in constituting the illegal selection committee. It cannot be said from the facts of the case that it was an innocent act of Dr. K.K. Verma in my opinion, it was the duty of the institute looking to its status to find out the truth behind all these actions and the institute may had considered for some criminal investigation also, unfortunately nothing has been done in this aspect. 28. K.K. Verma in my opinion, it was the duty of the institute looking to its status to find out the truth behind all these actions and the institute may had considered for some criminal investigation also, unfortunately nothing has been done in this aspect. 28. Hence, I do not find any merit in this petition, it is hereby dismissed without any order as to cost. A copy of this order be sent to Ministry of Human Resources department.