JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J. In the captioned writ application, prayer has been made for quashing of notification dated 14.08.2013 issued by respondent no. 2 whereby services of the petitioner on the post of Assistant Registrar, Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribag has been terminated with further direction to join the petitioner on the previous post of Store-keeper in the said University; and further prayer has been made for quashing portion of letter dated 12.08.2013 issued under the signature of respondent no. 3 whereunder the said authorities informed the Vice-Chancellor of the University that the Hon'ble Chancellor has been pleased to annul the notification dated 11.06.2010 regarding appointment of the petitioner as Assistant Registrar, Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribag and the petitioner has further made prayer for reinstatement on the post of Assistant Registrar, Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribag with all consequential benefits. 2. The brief facts, as disclosed in the writ application, is that the petitioner after obtaining M.A in Political Science had been working on the post of Store Keeper in Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribag since 22.08.1998. While continuing as such, an advertisement being Adv. No. 1/2010 was published by Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Ranchi for appointment on the post of Assistant Registrar, Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribag besides other posts. In pursuance to the said advertisement, the petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Registrar and after going through the selection process, on being found successful, his name was published on the website among the selected candidate for appointment on the post of Assistant Registrar. Thereafter, vide Memo dated 30.4.2010, the name of the petitioner was recommended for appointment on the said post and accordingly, the Registrar, Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribag issued notification dated 11.06.2010 whereby appointment of the petitioner was made. On being appointed on the said post, the petitioner gave his joining report on 12.06.2010 as Assistant Registrar in the University, which was duly accepted by the University. Thereafter, the petitioner continued to discharge his duties with the best of his ability and sincerity, but, all of a sudden vide letter dated 09.07.2013, a show cause notice was served upon the petitioner as to why his appointment made to the post of Assistant Registrar, Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribag be not annulled as he was not holding the requisite qualification for the post at the time of appointment. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted his explanation vide letter dated 17.07.2013. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted his explanation vide letter dated 17.07.2013. Being dissatisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, vide notification dated 14.08.2013 issued by the Registrar, Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribag, it was informed that the Vice Chancellor has been pleased to terminate the services of the petitioner, who was working on the post of Assistant Registrar, Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribag with immediate effect. In the said notification, there is reference of letter dated 12.08.2013 issued by the Principal Secretary to Hon'ble Governor-cum-Chancellor, Universities of Jharkhand, whereby Hon'ble Chancellor has been pleased to annul the notification issued vide memo dated 11.06.2010 regarding appointment of the petitioner as Assistant Registrar, Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribag. 3. Being aggrieved by the impugned order of termination dated 14.08.2013 as also letter dated 12.08.2013, the petitioner left with no alternative, efficacious and speedy remedy under article 226 of the Constitution of India, invoking extraordinary jurisdiction has approached this Court for redressal of his grievances. 4. The senior counsel for the petitioner has forcefully submitted that the action of the respondents being illegal and arbitrary has been issued in gross violation of relevant provision of University Statute as well as settled position of law. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the impugned order of termination is vulnerable as the so called report of five men enquiry committee was not supplied prior to termination of the petitioner. In support of his submission, learned senior counsel for the petitioner referred to the decision rendered in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad & Ors as reported in (1993) 4 SCC 727 and in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & Ors as reported in (1978) 1 SCC 405 . Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submits that as per Notification dated 24.12.1998 of UGC, the petitioner cannot be deprived of the benefits of relaxation of 5 % in the minimum qualification required for appointment on the post of Assistant Registrar and thereby the petitioner has been subjected to visiting with civil consequences. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submitted with vehemence that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the decision rendered in the case of Ajay Kumar Ram & Anr. Vs. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submitted with vehemence that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the decision rendered in the case of Ajay Kumar Ram & Anr. Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors passed in W.P. (S) No. 5283 of 2013 with W.P. (S) No. 5292 of 2013 dated 30.03.2016. It has further been submitted that actions of the respondent is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and the same is actuated by colourable exercise of power. Learned senior counsel further submits that issuance of show cause notice was only an empty formality, which was just for the sake of doing the same, as no proper detail was provided on asking an explanation, as to which requisite qualification the petitioner did not fulfil. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the once a decision has been taken by the Hon'ble Chancellor, there is no provision for review of the same under the University Act and the act does not clothe the Chancellor with the power to review his own orders. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submits that the show cause was issued to the petitioners providing that the same is being issued under Section 9 (4) of the University Act and as such in consonance with the aforesaid recommendation of the JPSC, recommending the appointment of the petitioners, cannot be reviewed by the Hon’ble Chancellor and furthermore, a final order under Section 58(3) cannot be reviewed under Section 9 (4) of the said Act. It has further been submitted that neither the recommendation nor the final order issued by the Hon’ble Chancellor recommending appointment of the petitioners, can be reviewed. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners further submits that decision has been taken after proper scrutiny and the appointments have been made as per procedure under law, which cannot be reopened at this stage, purportedly on the mistaken appreciation of the facts. 5. Per contra, a counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents-University, controverting the averments made in the writ application. In the counter affidavit, it has been mentioned that the five man committee constituted by the University found the petitioner lacking in qualification as well experience as per the said Advertisement. It has further been submitted that though the advertisement mentioned the post of Assistant Registrar in S.T Category but no relaxation in qualification was mentioned. In the counter affidavit, it has been mentioned that the five man committee constituted by the University found the petitioner lacking in qualification as well experience as per the said Advertisement. It has further been submitted that though the advertisement mentioned the post of Assistant Registrar in S.T Category but no relaxation in qualification was mentioned. It has further been submitted that the JPSC had directed the University vide letter dated 30.4.2010 to examine all the original documents before making appointment. The University constituted a five-men committee with the then Registrar as convener. The committee submitted its report on 25.05.2010. The University, not agreeing with the report of the committee relating to the petitioner, appointed him as Assistant Registrar vide memo dated 11.06.2010, which was communicated to the Governor's Secretariat vide letter dated 16.6.2010. It has further been submitted that letter dated 12.08.2013 was sent to the Vice-Chancellor by the Principal Secretary to the Governor-cum-Chancellor of the University informing the decision of the Hon'ble Chancellor of the Universities of Jharkhand to annul the notification dated 11.06.2010, whereby the petitioner was appointed. In compliance thereof, the petitioner was terminated from the post of the Assistant Registrar. 6. Counter affidavit filed by the respondent no. 3 states that in paragraph 2 of the recommendation made by J.P.S.C., request has been made to the Registrar, Vinoba Bhave University to get the original document verified before making appointment and continuance at paragraph it has specifically been mentioned that if in course of enquiry, any recommendee/applicants is found ineligible, their appointment shall automatically stand cancelled. Accordingly, the Vice-Chancellor of the University constituted a Five Member Committee, to enquire into the original certificates and other documents submitted by the recommended candidates including the petitioner, which submitted a report on 25.05.2010 stating that the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualifications, as he was having only 52 % marks in post graduate, instead of 55% marks as required in terms of the advertisement and further he also lacks the necessary work experience, in view of the fact that he worked as Assistant in different departments of the University but has got no five years supervisory experience as required in the advertisement issued by JPSC. It has emphatically been submitted that above referred conditions are necessary qualifications as per the terms of the Advt. It has emphatically been submitted that above referred conditions are necessary qualifications as per the terms of the Advt. No. 01/2010 meant for Assistant Registrar, which the petitioner is lacking, hence, the appointment of the petitioner has rightly been anulled. 7. Counter affidavit has also been filed by respondent-JPSC, wherein it has been averred that after conducting the interview, the name of the petitioner was recommended for provisional appointment with a request to the University to examine the original document before initiating the action of appointment and if any candidate is found ineligible, his recommendation would be presumed to be anulled. However, later on, show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the Principal Secretary to Hon'ble Governor, which led to passing of impugned order. 8. After bestowing my anxious considerations to the rivalized submissions and on perusal of the relevant records, I am of the considered view that the petitioners have been able to make out a case for interference, due to the following facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements: (I) In pursuance to Advertisement No.01/2010 for appointment of Assistant Registrar and other posts issued by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Ranchi, the petitioner having requisite qualifications applied for the said posts and after proper scrutinizing of the application of the petitioner and others by the JPSC, the petitioner was interviewed by the Selection Committee constituted by the JPSC and only thereafter, the JPSC recommended the name of petitioner along with others for respective posts. In pursuance to his appointment, he continued to perform his responsibilities, but to the utter surprise, a show cause under Section 9 (4) of University Act was issued to him after performing more than three years of service on the said post. Moreover, the show cause notice does not indicate regarding the specific lack of requisite qualification, hence, the impugned orders suffers from vice of arbitrary and cavalier action. Furthermore, the Act does not clothe the Chancellor with the power to review the impugned orders under Section 9 (4) of the Act. It is well established that unless the statute gives the authority a power to review its own order, the same cannot be reviewed. The view of this Court, gets fortified by the judgment of the Patna High Court delivered in the case of Smt. Saraswati Mishra vs. The Chancellor, Universities of Bihar, Patna & Ors as reported in 1981 PLJR 27 . The view of this Court, gets fortified by the judgment of the Patna High Court delivered in the case of Smt. Saraswati Mishra vs. The Chancellor, Universities of Bihar, Patna & Ors as reported in 1981 PLJR 27 . (II) In the case in hand, although the show cause notice was issued under Section 9 (4) of the Jharkhand State Universities Act, 2000 but the grounds taken by the petitioner in the show cause reply have not been considered while passing the impugned orders of annulment of the notification of appointment, therefore, the impugned orders are not legally sustainable, because of lack of reasons and being cryptic. In this respect, it would be profitable to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (2013) 6 SCC 530 (Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors. vs. A Masilamani), wherein at paragraph 19, it has been held as under: “19. The word “consider” is of great significance. The dictionary meaning of the same is, “to think over”, “to regard as”, or “deem to be”. Hence, there is a clear connotation to the effect that there must be active application of mind. …..” (III) On perusal of the show cause notice for cancellation of the appointment, it is quite apparent that the show cause notice only states in a vague general term that the petitioner did not hold requisite qualifications. The show cause notice ought to have indicated the precise scope of notice, also to indicate that the points on which the petitioner was expected to give reply. The show cause notice did not give the petitioner any opportunity to defend himself against the vague allegations, therefore, the petitioner did not get any chance at all to show that his appointment was validly made after verification of the qualifications. On that score, the impugned order of annulment of notifications as a sequel to the show cause notice is not legally sustainable. (iv). Moreover, the case of petitioner is squarely covered by the decision rendered in the case of Ajay Kumar Ram (Supra), hence, the petitioner deserve the same benefit, as has been extended in the case of Ajay Kumar Ram (Supra). 9. In view of the facts stated hereinabove and as a logical sequitur to the aforesaid facts and reasoning, the impugned orders are hereby quashed and set aside. 9. In view of the facts stated hereinabove and as a logical sequitur to the aforesaid facts and reasoning, the impugned orders are hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in services, if not already attained the age of superannuation during pendency of the writ petition and in case the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation, extend the service benefits to the petitioners for remaining period of his service tenures within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt/ communication of a copy of the order. 10. With the aforesaid direction, the writ application stand allowed.