JUDGMENT Shree Chandrashekhar, J. - LPA Nos. 147, 148, 149, 150, 154 and 210 of 2016 have been preferred by Birsa Agriculture University and LPA Nos. 130, 131, 132, 133 and 134 of 2016 have been filed on behalf the Chancellor of the University. Challenge in these Letters Patent Appeals is to order dated 19.02.2016 passed in W.P.(S) No. 3213 of 2014 and batch cases. 2. When 53 out of 147 employees appointed pursuant to Advertisement Nos. 1/2008 and 2/2011 faced the guillotine, crying 'condemned unheard' thus came before the Writ Court which quashed the order of termination from service and ordered their reinstatement in service. The appellants, aggrieved of the aforesaid order have challenged the Writ Court's order primarily on the ground that the large-scale illegality committed in appointment of the respondents must deprive them of the protection of the rules of natural justice. 3. Before adverting to the rival contentions, the brief facts sans unnecessary details are recorded hereunder; The respondent-writ petitioners were appointed on Grade-III and Grade-IV posts, pursuant to Advertisement Nos. 1/2008 and 2/2011. The Chancellor, on receipt of complaints of irregularities committed in selection of 147 persons pursuant to the aforesaid advertisements, ordered an enquiry by a judicial officer namely, S.S. Rao who was posted as OSD to the Hon'ble Governor, vide order dated 04.08.2011. The respondents were appointed vide appointment letters dated 21.05.2011. The enquiry report dated 19.04.2012 reveals serious irregularities in the appointments made. The Principal Secretary to the Governor wrote letter dated 26.07.2012 to the University to issue show-cause notice to the individual employees thus appointed. The University was required to forward its opinion after obtaining reply from the employees, so that a final decision is taken in the matter. Accordingly, show-cause notices in the form of questionnaire were issued to the appointees and the University forwarded their reply with its comments to the Chancellor. It appears that vide notification dated 03.10.2013, One Man Judicial Enquiry Commission headed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vikramaditya Prasad was appointed to enquire into the alleged illegal appointment of Grade-III and Grade-IV employees in the University. The One Man Judicial Enquiry Commission submitted its report on 26.04.2014 which was accepted by the Hon'ble Chancellor and a direction was issued to the University to terminate the services of 53 employees; a list containing their names was appended to letter dated 12.06.2014. The One Man Judicial Enquiry Commission submitted its report on 26.04.2014 which was accepted by the Hon'ble Chancellor and a direction was issued to the University to terminate the services of 53 employees; a list containing their names was appended to letter dated 12.06.2014. Consequently, order of termination from service dated 13.06.2014 was issued by the University which was challenged before the Writ Court. 4. Precise as prose, Mr. M.S. Anwar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Birsa Agriculture University assails the impugned order dated 19.02.2016, inter alia, on the following grounds: (i) Order dated 13.06.2014 is not an order of cancellation of appointment rather, by the said order respondents' illegal appointment has been ended and while so, no show-cause notice was required to be issued to the respondents. (ii) Appointment of the respondents was in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution and thus, per se illegal which can be terminated without seeking a show-cause reply from the appointees. (iii) Many of the respondents lack minimum eligibility qualification for appointment and therefore, no amount of hearing can improve their case; the show-cause notice would have been a futile exercise. 5. Mr. Anil Kumar, the learned Senior Counsel, who appears on behalf of the Chancellor, takes the battle further from where Shri Anwar had stopped. Referring to various provisions under the Statute of Birsa Agriculture University, the learned Senior Counsel contended that the Chancellor has powers under the Statute to cause an enquiry, as has been done in the present case. It is submitted that the respondents, in any case, cannot claim to have been confirmed in service and they remained on probation which can be terminated by an order like the one, which has been issued in this case. 6. Narrating the events leading to filing of the writ petitions by the respondents, Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents submits that the appointment of the respondents proceeded by duly published advertisements, selection by a duly constituted Committee, and on sanctioned vacant posts, is in consonance with the statutory and constitutional requirements and the respondents are not back-door appointees who can be shown the doors in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. Referring to letter dated 12.06.2014 issued by the Principal Secretary to the Governor and the letter of termination, the learned Senior Counsel contended that the Appointing Authority did not apply its mind to the relevant facts and the order of termination dated 13.06.2014 has been issued at the dictate of the Chancellor and thus, in violation of Article 311(1) of the Constitution. Throwing serious challenge to the appointment of One Man Judicial Enquiry Commission and the procedure adopted by the Commission, the learned Senior Counsel contends that on the basis of the enquiry report dated 26.04.2014 the respondents' services cannot be terminated. 7. Besides the aforesaid issues, the issue which is seriously debated during the course of hearing is, how only 53 persons out of 147 appointees were identified as beneficiaries of the alleged illegality committed during the selection process. To a pointed query from the Court on this issue, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants referred to various paragraphs in the report of the OSD to the Governor and report dated 26.04.2014 of the One Man Judicial Enquiry Commission, however, it stands admitted that case of all 53 respondents was not individually examined by any of the authorities, and from this stage we need not revert back to examine other contentions raised in the instant appeals. Without looking into the allegation of "pick and choose" levelled by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents, what appeals to the Court most, is the fact that if the respondents were heard they could have demonstrated whether they possess requisite qualifications for appointment on the respective posts or not. In this context, the observation in "Cooper v. Wandsworth Board of Works" [(1863) 143 ER 414] most appropriately depicts the situation like the one presented in the present case; "Even God himself did not pass sentence upon Adam before he was called upon to make his defence". 8. The learned Single Judge finding the order of termination dated 13.06.2014 in gross violation of the principles of natural justice has rightly quashed the order of termination. The exception indicated in "S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan & Ors." (1980) 4 SCC 379 ; "if upon admitted on indisputable facts only one conclusion was possible", is not attracted in case of the respondents. The exception indicated in "S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan & Ors." (1980) 4 SCC 379 ; "if upon admitted on indisputable facts only one conclusion was possible", is not attracted in case of the respondents. It is equally true that "the useless formalities theory" pleaded by Shri M.S. Anwar, the learned Senior Counsel is also not applicable in the present case, for the reason that a notice to the individual respondents could have help the appellant-University to reach to a just conclusion. Moreover, as noticed in "Aligarh Muslim University v. Mansoor Ali Khan" (2000) 7 SCC 529 , "the useless formalities theory" is an exception to the normal rule seeking compliance of the rules of natural justice. The facts of the present case do not carve out an exception, merely because certain findings of illegality, nepotism etc. have been recorded in the two enquiries conducted in the matter. 9. The impugned order of termination dated 13.06.2014 is seriously flawed on account of non-supply of enquiry report dated 26.04.2014. The termination letter refers to One Man Judicial Enquiry Commission's Report, in the light of which the Chancellor issued letter dated 12.06.2014 to the University to cancel the appointments. It is not denied that the termination order is founded on the findings recorded in the One Man Judicial Enquiry Commission, a copy of which was not supplied to the respondents. The respondents, thus, had no opportunity to meet the adverse findings recorded in the report. Definitely, the respondents were not afforded an opportunity to defend themselves. Necessity of a show-cause notice and proper and reasonable opportunity to respondents become necessary in view of the plea raised on behalf of the appellants that many of the respondents do not possess requisite qualification for appointment. 10. No doubt, the respondents were issued show-cause notices in the form of questionnaire, however, that exercise was undertaken pursuant to letter dated 26.07.2012 of the Principal Secretary to the Governor, consequent upon enquiry conducted by OSD to the Governor, however, it is an admitted position that the termination order is not based upon the enquiry report dated 19.04.2012 submitted by OSD to the Governor. The findings recorded by the learned Single Judge that in course of enquiry by One Man Judicial Enquiry Commission, no notice was issued to the respondents has not been challenged in the present proceeding. The judgments in "Mohd. Sartaj & Anr. The findings recorded by the learned Single Judge that in course of enquiry by One Man Judicial Enquiry Commission, no notice was issued to the respondents has not been challenged in the present proceeding. The judgments in "Mohd. Sartaj & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Anr." (2006) 2 SCC 315 and "Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India & Ors." (2007) 4 SCC 54 relied upon by Shri M.S. Anwar, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant-University, in absence of materials conclusively establishing that the respondents do not possess requisite qualification for appointment, are not attracted in the present case. The plea that respondents' appointment being purely temporary and liable to be terminated on one month's notice, and hence there was no need to issue a show-cause notice to them, must fail in view of the position taken by the appellants that termination letter dated 13.06.2014 was issued in the light of the findings of illegality recorded by One Man Judicial Enquiry Commission. This is not a case of termination simpliciter of probation which may not require adherence to the rules of natural justice. This also cannot be ignored that the learned Single Judge was careful enough not to comment upon the legality of the appointments rather, it has been specifically made clear that the respondents may initiate de novo proceedings. 11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is apparent that the impugned order dated 19.02.2016 passed by the Writ Court does not suffer from any infirmity in law. The Letters Patent Appeals, devoid of any merit, are dismissed. Appeals dismissed.