JUDGMENT : Sonia Gokani, J. 1. The petitioner in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the action of the respondent-authority by seeking the following substantial reliefs : "7(A) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the form of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned order passed by the Respondent State on 29.09.2015 as illegal and be pleased to direct the respondent State to reinstate the petitioner on his original post with all consequential benefits flowing from such reinstatement including financial benefits as if the impugned order was never passed;" FACTS 2. The factual score that is essential to be depicted is that the petitioner was appointed as an Armed Police Sub Inspector on his clearing Rashtrabhasha Ratna examination conducted by the Rashtrabhasha Prachar Samiti (hereinafter referred to as 'the Samiti'), Vardha. This qualification was treated as equivalent to graduation. This Samiti is a part of the Ashram established by Mahatma Gandhiji in Vardha after he left Sabarmati (Gandhi) Ashram at Ahmedabad. This is an institute imparting education in Hindi language and conducts examination in the very language. 2.1 In pursuance of an advertisement for the post of Platoon Commander in the State Reserved Police Force (hereinafter referred to as 'the SRPF') in the year 1993, the petitioner had applied for the same. After clearing the written test, followed by the physical test, he appeared for the oral interview and eventually on due verification of the certificates, the petitioner was appointed as a Platoon Commander/Armed Police Sub Inspector vide order dated April 13, 1994. He was also promoted to the post of Police Inspector and Company Commander and lastly, he was posted at Group 17, Chela, Jamnagar. 2.2 The petitioner on May 25, 2012, received a communication from the Additional Director General of Police directing him to produce the certified copy of the certificate of his graduation. The petitioner appeared before him on May 28, 2012 and submitted the same. 2.3 A charge-sheet came to be served upon him on June 21, 2012, on the ground that he had demonstrated immorality by showing the qualification of Rashtrabhasha Ratna as equivalent to graduation at the time of making the application. 2.4 Shri Mohan Jha, I.P.S., conducted the departmental proceedings. 2.3 A charge-sheet came to be served upon him on June 21, 2012, on the ground that he had demonstrated immorality by showing the qualification of Rashtrabhasha Ratna as equivalent to graduation at the time of making the application. 2.4 Shri Mohan Jha, I.P.S., conducted the departmental proceedings. It is the say of the petitioner that the inquiry did not take place as there was no material available with the department. On July 25, 2014, the Inquiry Officer exonerated him holding that the petitioner had not demonstrated any immorality. The Disciplinary Authority, viz. respondent No. 2-Director General of Police and Inspector General of Police, agreed with the findings. 2.5 It is further the say of the petitioner that he received the memorandum dated March 12, 2015, from the respondent-State informing him that a suo motu review was taken in exercise of powers under section 27A of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The respondent-State is empowered to examine legality and propriety of any decision or order passed and as to the regularity of proceedings in any inquiry or proceedings of any subordinate police officer for the purpose of satisfying itself. As such an order can be passed only on availing the reasonable opportunity to the officer concerned, the petitioner was issued the show cause notice on March 12, 2015. It is averred by the petitioner that review was impermissible considering the law of limitation. 2.6 The petitioner submitted his detailed explanation on April 07, 2015, requesting inter alia that there was no reason for reopening his case in the first place after a period of about 18 years of his recruitment and there was no reason to review the decision of Disciplinary Authority. The Reviewing Authority imposed the punishment of removal from service on September 29, 2015. The petitioner being extremely aggrieved by this decision has challenged the same in this petition with the aforementioned reliefs. 3. An affidavit-in-reply has been filed by the respondent No. 3-Ashokkumar Ramjibhai Pandor, Assistant Commandant, SRPF Group 17, Chela, District Jamnagar. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had applied for the post of Platoon Commandar in SRPF and was appointed vide order dated April 13, 1994. 3. An affidavit-in-reply has been filed by the respondent No. 3-Ashokkumar Ramjibhai Pandor, Assistant Commandant, SRPF Group 17, Chela, District Jamnagar. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had applied for the post of Platoon Commandar in SRPF and was appointed vide order dated April 13, 1994. According to the respondent-deponent, the petitioner did not fulfill the requisite criteria of educational qualification, which was necessary under the Bombay State Reserved Police Force (First Amendment) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). 3.1 It is further contended by the respondent that Rule 25(1) of the said Rules stipulates the criteria for Platoon Commander, which requires degree from any of the Universities incorporated by an Act of Parliament or State Legislature in India or other educational institution established by an Act of Parliament or declared to be a University under Section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 or an equivalent qualification recognised and approved as such by the competent authority. 3.2 Having regard to the fact of the petitioner having been appointed de hors Rule 25(1) of the Rules, the departmental proceedings were initiated, where he failed to establish that he possessed requisite qualification. It was obligatory on the part of the petitioner to establish that he possessed the degree as was needed for the said post. The departmental proceedings did not suffer from any procedural lapse or breach of principles of natural justice. The only ground raised is with regard to the lapse of time in seeking the review by the respondent No. 1. It is a specific stand of the respondent-State that the said certificate of Rashtrabhasha 'Ratna' is not equivalent to graduation under the provisions of Rule 25(1)(a) of the Rules and such was also the finding of the respondent No. 2, who had exonerated the petitioner. The departmental proceedings when had been conducted lawfully as per the respondents and when there are specific concurrent findings of both, the respondent No. 2 and the Reviewing Authority i.e. respondent No. 1, of clear breach on the part of the petitioner, this Court may not exercise extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER 4. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER 4. A fortiori, Shri G.M. Joshi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, urged this Court to interfere in the present matter, which according to him, is a fittest case for quashing and setting aside the impugned order. He urged that after rendering 22 years of service, a person cannot be harassed in such a manner. 4.1 It is not the case that either a forged or concocted document had been submitted at the time of his appointment as a Platoon Commander. Even the departmental proceedings were concluded by holding that he is not possessing the qualification which would fall under Rule 25(1) of the Rules, however, there is no fault on the part of the petitioner, who had revealed his qualification through his correct and original document at the time of his recruitment. He urged that the order passed by the Reviewing Authority deserves to be deprecated, which has come after a period of three years of the conclusion of the inquiry and there existed no ground to disagree with the order rendered by the respondent No. 2 exonerating the petitioner. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT-STATE 5. A contrario sensu, Shri Swapneshwar Gautam, learned Assistant Government Pleader, has argued that the Court in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may not interfere with the conclusion arrived by the Disciplinary Authority. He urged that the Reviewing Authority when has chosen to remove the petitioner after availing him the best of the opportunities in review proceedings, there is no circumstance much less extraordinary circumstance for this Court to interfere with the findings of his not possessing requisite qualification or of quantum of punishment. 5.1 He further urged that in the rarest of rare and exceptional circumstance, the Court should interfere so far as the quantum is concerned. He also urged that when the case of the petitioner clearly gets covered by the fact that he does not possess requisite qualification while taken in service in the year 1994, knowing fully well that he does not possess the requisite qualification, he ought not to have projected himself as a graduate. He also relied upon the departmental proceedings for substantiating his version. REASONS 6. He also relied upon the departmental proceedings for substantiating his version. REASONS 6. Having thus heard both the sides and also on careful examination of the material on record, this Court notices from the departmental proceedings that on June 21, 2012, the charge-sheet had been issued, which says that de hors Rule 25(1)(a) of the Rules, the petitioner being aware of not possessing any qualification of being a graduate of any university or a deemed university and also knowing fully well that he had possessed the certificate of Rashtrabhasha 'Ratna', which is not equivalent to graduation but only a certificate of Hindi language, he had shown immorality by joining as a Platoon Commander in SRPF by producing his certificate as equivalent to the graduate on April 13, 1994. 7. The petitioner herein sought time and gave preliminary reply, wherein he refuted these allegations and emphasised that none of the allegations is true nor has he produced any fake or forged or defective certificate. The petitioner completed his Higher Secondary Certificate examination and thereafter, he took admission in Bachelor of Science (B.Sc.) in C.U. Shah College. However, on account of poor economic condition of his family, he was compelled to quit his study after first year of college in the year 1988-89 and subsequently, he used to study by remaining at home only. He had studied Hindi language at Rashtrabhasha Prachar Samiti, Vardha. Firstly, he obtained certificate of 'Kovid' from the Samiti on December 03, 1988 and thereafter, on November 29, 1989, obtained the certificate of Rashtrabhasha 'Ratna', which is considered equivalent to degree of Bachelor of Arts. He had applied for the post of Platoon Commandar in the year 1993. His written test and later on, physical examination were also conducted by the Recruitment Board. He had categorically mentioned in his application of having educational qualification of Rashtrabhasha 'Ratna' and also produced certificates of S.S.C., H.S.C., 'Kovid' and Rashtrabhasha 'Ratna'. Five officers were forming the team of Interview Committee as decided by the Recruitment Board. Thereby, he was called for oral interview by the said Committee as interviews for the said post were held on October 04, 1993 and October 05, 1993. Five officers were forming the team of Interview Committee as decided by the Recruitment Board. Thereby, he was called for oral interview by the said Committee as interviews for the said post were held on October 04, 1993 and October 05, 1993. The said Committee consisted of the following officers : "(i) Shri K.V. Joseph : Additional Director General of Police, Armed Units and Training, Gujarat State, Gandhinagar; (ii) Shri K.S. Chaturvedi : Deputy Inspector General of Police, Armed Units, Ahmedabad; (iii) Shri Maniram : Deputy Inspector General of Police, Armed Units, Ahmedabad; (iv) Shri R.D. Tembe : Commandant, Group-9, Vadodara; and (v) Shri S.K. Sharma : Commandant, Group-10, Ukai." 8. It is required to be noted that considering his performance, he was selected by the said Committee for the post of a Platoon Commander. 8.1 This Court notices that the Recruitment Committee consisted of the aforementioned five officers interviewed total 44 candidates who had passed the written test as well as physical test. The Recruitment Committee allotted 10 marks to each member and accordingly, the said five members were to allot marks to the respective candidate. The candidates had to obtain 50% of the total marks in the interview for being qualified. At the end of the same, 30 candidates were selected since 14 candidates could not score more than 50% marks in personal interview. The list of 30 candidates contained the name of the petitioner at Sr. No. 16 who had obtained total 264 marks. He was declared successful along with other candidates to have qualified in general category. 9. His educational qualification of Rashtrabhasha 'Ratna' was treated as equivalent to graduation i.e. Bachelor of Arts, and the Committee had recommended him for the appointment. His service book also reflects his educational qualification as 'Rashtrabhasha Ratna'. He admittedly had not submitted any certificate fraudulently, immorally or with any ulterior motive; nor was there any ill-will or malice designed in seeking the said employment by the petitioner. He was hailing from a very small village of District Patan. His service book also reflects his educational qualification as 'Rashtrabhasha Ratna'. He admittedly had not submitted any certificate fraudulently, immorally or with any ulterior motive; nor was there any ill-will or malice designed in seeking the said employment by the petitioner. He was hailing from a very small village of District Patan. 9.1 It is his explanation that he was ignorant of the rules and regulations of equivalence of educational qualification at the relevant time, however, his Hindi language teacher Shri Ambalal A. Patel had made his brother Rambhai A. Patel to study and obtain the certificate of Rashtrabhasha Kovid and Ratna and the said Rambhai Patel was selected in the police force in direct selection. He became unarmed Police Sub Inspector on April 22, 1975, wherein in Column No. 8 of his service book, his educational qualification was shown as Rashtrabhasha Ratna. Thus, prior to the petitioner, Shri Rambhai A. Patel was also selected by the Recruitment Committee as an unarmed Police Sub Inspector who retired on July 31, 2008. 10. The Education Department of the Government of India, Ministry of Human Resources Development, New Delhi, had treated the said certificate of Rashtrabhasha 'Ratna' as equivalent to the degree of Bachelor of Arts. 10.1 The Director of Education, Gujarat State, vide his communication of December, 1964, had directed all the Education Inspectors of the State to treat the said certificate as equivalent to graduation. Many of the teachers were also employed treating the said certificate as equivalent to degree of Bachelor of Arts. 10.2 Various degrees have been equalised by the Gujarat Secondary Education Board vide its communication dated January 24, 1977, wherein also this equivalence has been ingeminated. 10.3 Further, the Secretary, Gujarat Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Board, vide his communication dated July 09, 2012, addressed to the Gujarat Regional Rashtrabhasha Prachar Samiti, Ahmedabad, had vindicated qua equivalence of various degrees. 10.4 This Court further notices that the Education Department, Ministry of Human Resources Development, New Delhi, vide its communication dated May 05, 1988, published the list of equivalence certificate, wherein at Sr. No. 2, it is indicated that the certificate in Rashtrabhasha Ratna is equivalent to the degree of Bachelor of Arts. 10.4 This Court further notices that the Education Department, Ministry of Human Resources Development, New Delhi, vide its communication dated May 05, 1988, published the list of equivalence certificate, wherein at Sr. No. 2, it is indicated that the certificate in Rashtrabhasha Ratna is equivalent to the degree of Bachelor of Arts. 10.5 Likewise, the Director of Education, Gujarat State, under the heading of "Recognition of Various Hindi Examinations as equivalent to B.A." has indicated the certificate of Rashtrabhasha Ratna from Vardha to be equivalent to Bachelor of Arts. 10.6 Further, the communication addressed to all the District Education Officers of the Gujarat State by the Gujarat Secondary Education Board dated January 24, 1977 at Sr. No. 59, equates the examination of Ratna from Rashtrabhasha Prachar Samiti, Vardha, with the Bachelor of Arts for the purpose of pay-scale of Senior Training Certificate (STC) teachers. It, of course, provides that after one year of clearing 'Kovid' examination, 'Ratna' examination and examination of Hindi Teacher Sanad (Senior) if are cleared, the candidate concerned would be entitled to the pay-scale of B.A., STC, which is made effective from August 01, 1968. 11. Much reliance is also placed on the Government Press Note dated February 18, 1970, issued by the Ministry of Education and Youth Services and citing the said Government Resolution, the Principal Secretary, Rashtrabhasha Prachar Samiti, Vardha, issued a circular saying that the Ratna examination from the Samiti can be cleared without going to the school and such examination is conducted at Vardha and the same is treated equivalent to the degree of Bachelor of Arts. 11.1 According to the Reviewing Authority, this applies only for the employment with the Central Government and not the State Government and when this qualification cannot be equated with a full-fledged Bachelor's degree and is restricted to the subject of Hindi, this is held an appointment in disregard to the requirement of law. 11.1 According to the Reviewing Authority, this applies only for the employment with the Central Government and not the State Government and when this qualification cannot be equated with a full-fledged Bachelor's degree and is restricted to the subject of Hindi, this is held an appointment in disregard to the requirement of law. 11.2 It is also apparent from the decision of the Reviewing Authority that it banked upon the date of certificate of Rashtrabhasha 'Kovid' and 'Ratna' to conclude that the certificate of 'Ratna' examination was not cleared after one year of the certificate of 'Kovid' and, therefore, over-emphasizing the words of the communication dated January 24, 1977, addressed by the Gujarat Secondary Education Board, to all the District Education Officers of the State, it held that the certificate of Ratna obtained from the Samiti was not a valid certificate which could be equated with the Bachelor's degree in any discipline. In fact, communication dated January 24, 1977, was meant for grant of pay-scale to the B.A., STC employees, which has no relevance to the said conclusion. And, again both the certificates of 'Kovid' and 'Ratna' are issued to the petitioner within a span of 11 months and, therefore also, the given logic is unacceptable. 12. One can notice that the Disciplinary Authority after thoroughly considering the report of the Inquiry Officer reached to the conclusion that though the examination of Rashtrabhasha 'Ratna' from the Samiti cannot be equated with the degree of Bachelor of Arts, the certificate submitted by the petitioner was neither forged nor concocted and, therefore, the onus was not upon the petitioner. The Recruitment Committee after verifying all the documents had recruited the petitioner as a Platoon Commander. It, therefore, decided to exonerate the petitioner of all the charges. 13. The Recruitment Committee after verifying all the documents had recruited the petitioner as a Platoon Commander. It, therefore, decided to exonerate the petitioner of all the charges. 13. It would be apt to reproduce Rule 25(1)(a) of the said Rules, which reads as under : "25(1) : To be eligible for appointment by direct selection to the post mentioned in Rule 24, a candidate shall - (a) Possess a degree of any of the University incorporated by an Act of Parliament or State Legislature in India or other educational institution established by an Act of Parliament or declared to be a University under Section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 or possess an equivalent qualification recognised and approved as such by the competent authority." 13.1 This Rule allows only the person possessing requisite educational qualification to be a Platoon Commander. He can be termed as qualified to be appointed, provided he possesses a degree of any University of Centre or State established under the law or any institution declared to be a University under the University Grants Commission (UGC) Act. 14. In the opinion of this Court, on independent examination of material sought to be relied upon by the petitioner clearly and unfailingly makes this Court to conclude that the certificate of Rashtrabhasha 'Ratna' obtained from the Samiti as per the aforementioned communications, notification, Government Resolution, Circular, etc. of the Central Government as well as the State Government and the respective Board, as discussed hereinbefore, is equivalent to the degree of Bachelor of Arts. It would not be out of place to mention at this stage that the Disciplinary Authority has also fallaciously and wrongly concluded that because of absence of gap of one year in procuring the certificates of Kovid and Ratna by the petitioner, the degree would be invalid. Being unmindful of the fact that the communication dated January 24, 1977 of the Gujarat Secondary Education Board, was for grant of pay-scale to the teachers holding degree in B.A., STC, where the requirement was to have the certificate of Ratna after one year of completion of examination of Kovid and also Hindi Teacher's Sanad (senior) of the Government. It is quite clear that this communication does not and cannot determine as to whether the certificate of Ratna obtained from the Samiti could be equated with the degree of Bachelor in Arts in Hindi language. It is quite clear that this communication does not and cannot determine as to whether the certificate of Ratna obtained from the Samiti could be equated with the degree of Bachelor in Arts in Hindi language. There are other documents, which have been referred to and discussed hereinbefore, which clearly and unequivocally equate the certificate of Ratna obtained from the Samiti with the degree of Bachelor of Arts. 14.1 The Recruitment Committee had, therefore, rightly scrutinised the said certificate of the petitioner and had after marathon exercise of written examination, physical test and oral interview appointed him as a Platoon Commander. 14.2 It can thus be said that he was appointed in accordance with Rule 25(1)(a) of the Rules and not de hors the said Rule, as contended by the respondents. In the opinion of this Court, the initiation of departmental inquiry itself was without any basis much less the valid legal basis and in the decision of the Disciplinary Authority even while exonerating the petitioner of the charges also wrongly held his certificate of Rashtrabhasha Ratna as not equivalent to the degree of Bachelor of Arts. 14.3 It would be apt to note that during the departmental proceedings when witnesses were being examined, Inquiry Officer was ensured to produce the certificate or document of authorised person or authority equalising degree of petitioner authentically. However, nothing was adduced before the Inquiry Officer by the department. Had there been reasons and grounds, they ought to have been placed in the inquiry proceedings. 15. In the year 2014, the Disciplinary Authority also found that there was no immorality much less any illegality or dishonesty on the part of the petitioner in producing the said certificate and, therefore, exonerated the petitioner of all the charges by holding that the Recruitment Committee had chosen to scrutinise all the documents, which had been adduced by the petitioner at the time of his selection. However, the Reviewing Authority by over-emphasising the communication dated January 24, 1977, had arrived at a conclusion of holding the action of the petitioner as dishonest and immoral. 15.1 It does have powers under section 27A of the Bombay Police Act as referred to hereinbefore at paragraph 2.5 and such review can be done within a period of three years of the outcome of the inquiry. 15.1 It does have powers under section 27A of the Bombay Police Act as referred to hereinbefore at paragraph 2.5 and such review can be done within a period of three years of the outcome of the inquiry. Therefore, the ground of limitation raised by the petitioner may not come in the way of the Reviewing Authority but suo motu review initiated has no basis much less valid basis. 16. Despite specific queries raised by this Court, the respondent-State was unable to answer as to how and in what manner the petitioner has failed to do what he was required to do. Various candidates had applied and after following the due tests and oral interview, the petitioner was selected by the Recruitment Committee and the final section was made after final interview for which 44 candidates were called by the Committee consisting of the highest IPS officers of the State. Further, no substantiating document comes forth as to how the Committee could be faulted with for such selection in the wake of specific documents of Central Government and the State Government, as also the competent authority, equalising the certificate of Ratna obtained from the Samiti with the degree of Bachelor of Arts and to say the least, nowhere one finds any fault on the part of the petitioner as neither he has concealed any document nor has he misrepresented or forged or concocted any material for getting the said employment. 17. Since this Court is quashing the order of Reviewing Authority in toto, going into the dissection of each charge of the charge-sheet dealt with by the Disciplinary Authority is not necessary. As held and observed hereinbefore, by an independent examination of the certificates of the petitioner, the material on record and relevant Government Resolutions, circulars, notifications, communications, etc., this Court has arrived at a conclusion that at the time when the petitioner was recruited by direct selection, the certificate of Ratna obtained from the Samiti as equivalent to the degree of Bachelor of Arts of any recognised university and, therefore, the present petition deserves to be allowed by quashing and setting aside the impugned order. 18. This Court found no material worth the name for initiating the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. It could not even satisfy itself with other factual details contended by the State for such initiation of inquiry. 18. This Court found no material worth the name for initiating the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. It could not even satisfy itself with other factual details contended by the State for such initiation of inquiry. Again the Inquiry Officer found the petitioner not guilty. Conclusion of the Disciplinary Authority also was sound and legal. Even while not agreeing to equalising his certificate with the degree, it rightly had exonerated the petitioner and dropped the charges against him by holding that it was not feasible to find fault with the petitioner nor was it possible to question Committee's or Board's decision. Even if the petitioner did not possess the equivalent degree, it is unthinkable that in a recruitment process conducted by the Competent Authority, which culminated into an oral interview by five very senior police officers of the State and when there is no concealment or forgery of any document, how a candidate would be said to have acted immorally or illegally in getting the post of Platoon Commander? The respondent-state has thoroughly failed to prove their stand. Again the Reviewing Authority with the very material chose to take matter in suo motu review and held him guilty of acting dishonestly and immorally though having produced a correct and genuine document/certificate for getting appointment where he had no say and that too, without this document having been proved as forged or defective in any manner. 18.1 It nowhere emerges from record as to what was the cause for a fishing inquiry after a period of about 18 years of service of an employee. There was no blemish record of the petitioner and even his entire service career was blotless. If there was any other cause for initiating the departmental inquiry against the petitioner, the respondent-State is expected to initiate necessary procedure and hold inquiry for the reasons for which the officer is found defaulting instead of creating the ground which does not exist. The inquiry in question appears to be a design only to initiate action against the petitioner for some ulterior reasons as otherwise there hardly seems any cause or reason for initiating such an inquiry after a lapse of about two decades i.e. 18 years. The inquiry in question appears to be a design only to initiate action against the petitioner for some ulterior reasons as otherwise there hardly seems any cause or reason for initiating such an inquiry after a lapse of about two decades i.e. 18 years. 18.2 In Special Civil Application No. 10173 of 2014 in the case of Ganeshbhai Juthabhai Patel and others v. State of Gujarat and others, this Court (Coram : J.B. Pardiwala, J.), the services of the petitioners who were appointed in the quota of Ex-Servicemen were terminated after a period of 26 years on the ground of their not falling under the definition of "Ex-Servicemen". The Court while deprecating such action, made a distinction between the terms "illegal appointment" and "irregular appointment" in the following manner : "Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, the only question that falls for my consideration is, whether the petitioners should continue in service. The following facts are not in dispute : (1) The petitioners were appointed in the year 1990. (2) Their services came to be terminated for the first time in the year 1992. (3) They filed the Special Civil Application No. 3863 of 1992 challenging their termination and the same came to be allowed vide order dated 31st July 2006 on the ground that no opportunity of hearing was given before terminating their services. (4) From 1992 till 31st July 2006 they continued in service. (5) After succeeding before this Court in the Special Civil Application No. 3863 of 1992, the respondents took almost a period of two years to afford hearing to the petitioners, and after giving the opportunity of hearing in the year 2008, once again a decision was taken after a period of six years i.e. in the year 2015, that their services should be terminated. (6) For all these years they have worked with no complaints. After putting in 26 years of service, if I hold the appointments to be illegal, even then they need to be protected. There is no question of holding that the appointments were illegal because the respondents themselves realized at a very late stage as to who could be called an Ex-Serviceman. After putting in 26 years of service, if I hold the appointments to be illegal, even then they need to be protected. There is no question of holding that the appointments were illegal because the respondents themselves realized at a very late stage as to who could be called an Ex-Serviceman. If they would have been told on day one that they do not fall within the category of Ex-Servicemen, they would have taken up any other employment for the purpose of their livelihood. Now after these many years they should not be asked to go home, and that too, on the ground that the respondents had not realized at that relevant point of time that they could not have been given appointments as Ex-Servicemen. I am not impressed with the submissions of Mr. Goutam, the learned AGP, that the appointments in the quota of the Ex-Serviceman could be termed as per se illegal. The distinction between the two terms i.e. illegal appointment and irregular appointment, is apparent. In the event, the appointment is made in total disregard of the constitutional scheme as also the recruitment rules framed by the employer, which is State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, the recruitment would be an illegal one; whereas there may be cases where, although, substantial compliance of the constitutional scheme as also the rules have been made, yet the appointment may be irregular in the sense that some provisions of some rules might not have been strictly adhered to. In the case in hand, the State is not disputing the fact that the petitioners are the Ex-Servicemen, but according to the Sate, what was necessary was the minimum five years of service as the Ex-Servicemen, which the petitioners were not fulfilling. For example, the petitioner No. 1 had served in the Army for 11 months and 23 days, the petitioner No. 2 served for 2 years and 16 days, the petitioner No. 3 served for 3 months and 26 days and the petitioner No. 4 served for 1 year and 4 days. According to the State, the petitioners were discharged from their services in the Army because they were not found to be capable of becoming good soldiers. I may only say that the requirement, according to the advertisement, was that the candidate should be an Ex-Serviceman. According to the State, the petitioners were discharged from their services in the Army because they were not found to be capable of becoming good soldiers. I may only say that the requirement, according to the advertisement, was that the candidate should be an Ex-Serviceman. The advertisement did not prescribe any further conditions for being qualified as an Ex-Serviceman. Again at the cost of repetition I may state that the State itself was in confusion whether the petitioners would fall within the category of the Ex-Servicemen or not. The termination of the services of the petitioners after a period of 26 years could certainly be termed as a very harsh action on the part of the State Government because each one of them would ordinarily have got married and have had children and are over-aged for any other employment and has settled down in life with the reasonable expectation that ordinarily they would have been continued in service till the age of retirement." 18.3 Here as discussed hereinbefore, there is no question of terming appointment of the petitioner as irregular even. Reference of the above referred matter is only with a view that even if it was an irregular appointment, the period of 22 years was a huge time for taking such a harsh step. The petitioner herein also discharged his duties diligently with nothing adverse against him. 18.4 This Court, in fact, found the action of Reviewing Authority more arbitrary and contrary to the settled norms when it had no base to deny equalisation as was given to the certificate of 'Rashtrabhasha Ratna' with the Bachelor's degree. Its Ostrich like attitude of not even bothering to look at other existing material, deserves strong disapproval. Hence, the present petition deserves to be allowed with costs. 19. For the foregoing reasons, the present petition succeeds and the same is, accordingly, allowed. The impugned order dated September 29, 2015, passed by the respondent-authority is quashed and set aside. The respondent-authority is directed to reinstate the petitioner to his original post with all the consequential benefits flowing from such reinstatement, including all the financial benefits as if no such impugned order was passed. This exercise shall be completed by the respondent-authority within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As discussed hereinbefore, the respondent-authority is directed to pay exemplary costs of Rs. This exercise shall be completed by the respondent-authority within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As discussed hereinbefore, the respondent-authority is directed to pay exemplary costs of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) towards this petition to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Disposed of accordingly.