JUDGMENT Samvatsar, J. -- 1. This judgment shall govern the disposal of both the writ appeals as they arise out of the common order dated 9th October, 2006 passed by Single Bench of this Court in Writ Petitions No.3417/05 and 3887/05 whereby the Single Bench has dismissed both the aforesaid writ petitions filed by petitioners, appellants herein challenging their termination orders. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that Lakshmibai College of Physical Education, Gwalior was established on 17.8.1957 by the then President of India S. Radhakrishnan with a total strength of 27 students in Bachelor of Physical Education. At that time, the said college was affiliated to Vikram University, Ujjain. In the year 1963, two years Master Degree Course in Physical Education was commenced and in the year 1964, it was granted national status and renamed as Lakshmibai National College of Physical Education. On 2.9.1995, the Government of India, Ministry of Human Resources and Development, on the recommendations of University Grant Commission granted the status of deemed University to the said college and renamed it as "Lakshmibai National Institute of Physical Education, Gwalior" (LNIPE). Subsequently, the college was transferred to a society constituted on 24.4.2001 called as Lakshmibai National Institute of Physical Education Society and for regulating the functions of the said society, Memorandum of Association (MOA) of the society was formulated. It is also averred that the norms of University Grant Commission (UGC) are also binding on the said Institution. 3. The institution wanted to fill up some posts of Lecturers, hence, permission was sought to appoint lecturers by relaxing the ban on appointment. Said permission was granted to the institution. An advertisement was issued on 28.3.2000 calling for applications for filling up the posts of lecturers. However, no appointments could be made in pursuance of the said advertisement. Second advertisement (Annexure P10) was issued on 6.12.2001. It was mentioned in the second advertisement that the candidates who had applied in pursuance of the previous advertisement were also eligible for participating in the said selection. Appellants-writ petitioners and other candidates had applied for the post of lecturers. Their applications were considered and they were called for interview by the selection committee. On 17.3.2002 interviews were held and the present appellants were selected. 4. Appellants-writ petitioners and other candidates had applied for the post of lecturers. Their applications were considered and they were called for interview by the selection committee. On 17.3.2002 interviews were held and the present appellants were selected. 4. On public interest litigation (WP No.450/02) was filed by one Rajendra Tayal who was a social worker and who was totally stranger to the institution, challenging the appointments made by the institution. Said PIL was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 19.4.2004 in following terms: "Petitioner shall submit a representation to the respondent No.3 Board of Management modifying the prayer claimed by him and raising necessary grievances alongwith copy of this petition. Respondent No.3 Board of Management shall consider the representation and after hearing the affected party 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." 5. In pursuance of the directions issued by Division Bench in the above PIL, said Rajendra Tayal submitted a representation to the institution and higher authorities for cancellation of appointments. Said representation was considered by the Board of Management in its meeting dated 30th May 2005 and the Board of Management found that the selection committee was not properly constituted. The selection committee constituted by the Vice-Chancellor was contrary to the rules of the institution and therefore, show cause notice was issued to the appellant-petitioners on 31.5.2002. The appellant-petitioners, after service of the show cause notice, requested the Board of Management to supply certain documents. However, those documents were never supplied. The appellant-petitioners filed their reply to the show cause notice and the Board of Management after considering their reply has found that the selection committee was contrary to rule 23 of the MOA, hence, terminated the appointments of the appellant-petitioners. 6. Being aggrieved by the termination of their services, appellants filed writ petitions before this Court. Those petitions are dismissed by the impugned orders, hence, these writ appeals. 7. 6. Being aggrieved by the termination of their services, appellants filed writ petitions before this Court. Those petitions are dismissed by the impugned orders, hence, these writ appeals. 7. The firest contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the 23rd meeting of the Board of Management was convened on 7th January, 2005 and in that meeting, nothing wrong was found in the selection. The minutes of the Board of Management are on record at page No.198 of the paper book. The question of appointment of lecturers was considered by the Board of Management at item No.5, 19 and the Board found that 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 Professor Bangar on 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 and Shri Bangar was a member of SC/ST category. The then Vice-Chancellor also appeared to have acted in good faith while inducing 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. Hence, the Board decided to recommend to the competent authority, i.e., the President of the Institute for ex post facto approval to the composition of selection committee with effect from the date of its composition and the institute was to apprise the Board of the decision taken by the competent authority in the matter. Thus, the matter was referred for ex post facto approval to the composition of selection committee. Said approval was, however, rejected and hence, the appointments were cancelled. 8. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that in the 23rd meeting of the Board of Management, the appointments of the appellants were validated. It is also contended that there was no challenge to the merits of the candidates nor any bias was alleged against the members of the selection committee. 9. Counsel for the appellants next contended that the Memorandum of Association empowers the Vice-Chancellor to constitute a committee. It is also contended that there was no challenge to the merits of the candidates nor any bias was alleged against the members of the selection committee. 9. Counsel for the appellants next contended that the Memorandum of Association empowers the Vice-Chancellor to constitute a committee. 10. Memorandum of Association (MOA) is on record as Annexure P-2 which is at page No.109 of the paper book. Rule 5(a) of the Rules known as Lakshmibai National Institute of Physical Education, Gwalior appended to the MOA provides for the powers of the Board of Management. Clause (iii) of rule 5(a) of the Rules referred to above deals with the appointment of Professors, Readers, Lecturers and other academic staff as may be necessary on the recommendations of the selection committee. Selection committee is provided in rule 12. For appointment of Lecturers, Professors and Readers in the institute the selection committee shall be consisted of (i) Vice-Chancellor of the Institute as Chairman; (ii) a person nominated by the President as member; (iii) Dean of Faculty/Head of Department/Chairman, Board of Studies, provided he is a Professor as member; and (iv) Three outside experts nominated by the President from a panel of not less than six names recommended by the Academic Council and approved by the Board of Management. 11. Officers of the institute are provided in rule 15. Rule 15(c) relates to Vice-Chancellor. It is contended that the proviso to the said rule provides that a person appointed as Vice-Chancellor shall retire from office during the tenure of his office of extension, thereof, if any, he completes the age of 65 years. If the office of Vice-Chancellor becomes vacant due to death, resignation, or otherwise and in his absence due to illness or any other cause, the Dean or if there is no Dean, the senior most Professor shall perform the duties of Vice-Chancellor. Relying on this provision, it is contended by the counsel for the appellant that if for any reason like illness or for any other cause, the Vice-Chancellor is not available, then the senior most Professor shall perform the duties of Vice-Chancellor. 12. Contention of the learned counsel for the appellants-petitioners is that Dr. K.K. Verma who was the Vice-Chancellor of the Institute withdrew himself from the Chairman of the selection committee on account of the fact that his daughter was one of the candidates. He pointed out that Dr. 12. Contention of the learned counsel for the appellants-petitioners is that Dr. K.K. Verma who was the Vice-Chancellor of the Institute withdrew himself from the Chairman of the selection committee on account of the fact that his daughter was one of the candidates. He pointed out that Dr. Pramod Kumar Pande was the senior most Professor in the Institute at that time. Thus, the action of appointing Shri Pramod Kumar Pande as Chairman of the selection committee cannot be said to be illegal. 13. Counsel for the appellants drew attention of this Court to clause (ii) of rule 15( c) of the Rules referred to above which provides that the Vice-Chairman 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 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 and if the authority concerned as mentioned in clause (i) 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. 14. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that Dr. T.C. Kundu was inducted as an expert in place of one of the members of the committee, i.e., Mrs. Sudarshan Pathak who fell sick at the eleventh hour. Prof. R.K. Bangad and Dr. T.C. Kundu were members of the panel prepared in this behalf and therefore, there is no illegality. 15. The Writ Court, however, held that said change in the selection committee was mala fide. Initially for appointment of lecturers, the selection committee was constituted of Dr. J.S. Narukha as Chairman. So far as Dr. J.S. Narukha is concerned, he at the relevant time, was no more holding the office and in his place Dr. K.K Verma was appointed as Vice-Chancellor. Dr. Verma withdrew from the selection committee on the ground that his daughter was appearing in the interview. Other member of the committee was Shri Shailendra Sharma who was nominated by President, LNIPE. Third member was Mrs. Sudarshan Pathak who, according to the appellants, fell sick and in her place Dr. T.C. Kundu, who was also a member of the panel was taken. Other member of the committee was Shri Shailendra Sharma who was nominated by President, LNIPE. Third member was Mrs. Sudarshan Pathak who, according to the appellants, fell sick and in her place Dr. T.C. Kundu, who was also a member of the panel was taken. Shri B.S. Rathore, Coordinator, Physical Education, Rajasthan University, Jaipur was the another member of the selection committee who participated in the selection process. The fourth member was Dr. T.C. Kundu who was also a member of the panel consituted for the selection committee for the selection of lecturers and who participated in the selection process as an expert of the subject. Thus, according to the appellants-petitioners, the selection committee was constituted as per the powers of the Vice-Chancellor, and therefore, there was no irregularity. 16. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we find that the appellants-petitioners were appointed in the year 2002. Public interest litigation was filed by one Rajendra Tayal which was decided in the year 2004. Thereafter, show cause notices were issued to the appellants petitioners and they have been removed from service. Thus, they continued on the post of for a period of about three and a half years. 17. The Writ Court has not found anything against the appellants-petitioners so far as their merits are concerned. Since there is no finding about bias, therefore, selection of the appellants is set aside only on the ground that the selection committee was not in accordance with the Rules. Even assuming for a moment that the selection committee was not constituted strictly in accordance with the Rules, still the question is whether that itself will be a ground for terminating the services. 18. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is that if the selection committee is not constituted in accordance with the Rules referred to above, then the entire selection process will be vitiated. For this purpose, he referred to the judgment of this Court in the case of Salam Mani Singh (Dr.) v. Lakshmibai National Institute of Physical Education and others [ 2002(2) JLJ 391 ]. In para 32 of the judgment, this Court has held that due to illegal constitution of the selection committee, entire selection process vitiates. 19. For this purpose, he referred to the judgment of this Court in the case of Salam Mani Singh (Dr.) v. Lakshmibai National Institute of Physical Education and others [ 2002(2) JLJ 391 ]. In para 32 of the judgment, this Court has held that due to illegal constitution of the selection committee, entire selection process vitiates. 19. Another judgment on the question is in the case of Jagdish Singh Gurjar v. State of M.P and others [WP 839/2003 decided on 30.7.2005], decided by one of us (S. Samvatsar, J.) in which also this Court has held that a member who was not competent to be a member of the selection committee if participates in the selection process, then the entire selection process vitiates. 20. From perusal of the aforesaid judgments, it appears that in all cases challenge to the selection was made by unsuccessful candidates and allegations of causing prejudices were present. In the present case, the selection process is not challenged by any of the candidates and the appointments of the appellant-petitioners are cancelled by the management itself, that too, after lapse of about three and a half years. No objection to the selection process was taken by any of the candidates nor the management. One Rajendra Tayal who filed the PIL was not even a staff member of the institute nor he was connected, in any manner, to the selection process. He had filed the PIL only as a social worker. 21. It is pertinent to point out that all the members who had participated in the selection process were from the panel prepared for that purpose. All the members were inducted by the then Vice-Chancellor and there are no allegations that these persons were not qualified to be the members of the selection committee or have acted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the Institute. 22. Counsel for the respondents pointed out that Shri R.K. Bangad was included in the panel as a member of SC/ST. His name was included in the panel only because the entire recruitment was to be made for reserved candidates, i.e., SC/ST, and therefore, presence of a member of SC/ST category was necessary. Hence, Shri R.K. Bangad was included in the panel as per the guidelines of UGC, which are filed with this appeal. His name was included in the panel only because the entire recruitment was to be made for reserved candidates, i.e., SC/ST, and therefore, presence of a member of SC/ST category was necessary. Hence, Shri R.K. Bangad was included in the panel as per the guidelines of UGC, which are filed with this appeal. It is also contended by learned counsel for the respondents that the committee, which was constituted was as per the norms, which are applicable to the respondent-institution. 23. The apex Court in the case of Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shikla and others [ AIR 2002 SC 2322 ], has considered the question about promissory estoppal in the matter of selection process. In para 32 of the said judgment, after considering large number of judgments, the apex Court has laid down that: "In conclusion, this Court recorded that the issue of estoppal by conduct can only be said to be available in the event of there being a precise and unambiguous representation and it is on that score a further question arises as to whether there was any unequivocal assurance prompting the assured to alter his position or status - the situation, however, presently does not warrant such a conclusion and we are thus not in a position to lend concurrence to the contention of the learned counsel pertaining the doctrine of estoppal by conduct. It is to be noticed at this juncture that while the doctrine of estoppal by conduct may not have any application but that does not bar a contention as regards the right to challenge an appointment upon due participation at the interview/selection. It is a remedy which stands barred and it is in this perspective in Om Pakash Shukla {[Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla and others [1986 Supp. SCC 285]}, a three Judge Bench of this Court laid down in no uncertain terms that when a candidate appears at the examination without protest and subsequently found to be not successful in the examination, question of entertaining a petition challenging the said examination would not arise. Thus, the apex Court has laid down that challenge to the selection committee by a candidate appearing in the examination should be entertained before he has participated in the proceedings. Thus, the apex Court has laid down that challenge to the selection committee by a candidate appearing in the examination should be entertained before he has participated in the proceedings. This principle is laid down by the apex Court on the principle that rules cannot be challenged after the game is over;one has to challenge the rules before participating in the game. This principle is laid down by the apex Court in respect of candidates who at number of times have not processed defect in the constitution of selection committee. 24. However, In the present case, the Vice-Chancellor himself had constituted the selection committee and the members who were within the knowledge about the defect in the selection committee have slept over the matter for about three and half years after appointments were made. Thus, the members have acquiesced themselves and have no right to challenge the appointments on the ground of selection when the appellant-petitioners, who are candidates from outside the State of Madhya Pradesh, have got their appointments and altered their position by leaving other jobs available to them. Therefore, in the present case, this principle will apply with greater force and hence, their appointment could not have been cancelled by the Institute after a lapse of about more than three and a half years on the ground that the committee which selected them was not in accordance with the rules. 25. The learned Single Judge has completely lost sight of the aforesaid principle laid down by the apex Court. From record, it appears that the impugned action was taken only because there was change in the Management of the Institute in these three and a half years. 26. In such circumstances, we find that the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Hence, we allow the writ appeals filed by the appellants, set aside the impugned orders and allow the writ petitions filed by the appellant-petitioners by quashing the order of termination of their services and direct to reinstate the appellant-petitioners in service forthwith with full back wages. If the appellant-petitioners remained out of job during this period, they will have to file an affidavit before the Registrar, LNIPE to that effect and after due verification of the said affidavit by the Registrar, back wages shall be payable.