ORDER : 1. The instant petition has been moved by the Petitioner seeking following reliefs : “I. That, the Hon’ble High Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire record in respect of the case of the petitioner from the respondent University. II. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) against the respondent’s authority by declaring the impugned order/notification dated 13.07.2023 (Annexure-P/1) is bad in the eyes of law and the same is not sustainable under the law, thus the petitioner is entitle for reinstatement along with all the consequent service benefit. III. To kindly inflict exemplary cost of Rupees 50 lacs on the respondents for torturing, causing mental torment and exploiting the petitioner and violating fundamental and human rights of the petitioner. IV. That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ’s/order’s/direction’s/relief’s, which this Hon’ble Court may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Facts of the case, as per the pleadings of the writ petition, are that in the year 2007, the Respondent/University published an advertisement for direct recruitment on the regular posts of Professor, Reader and Lecturer in different subjects. The Petitioner also participated and was selected to the post of Associate Professor (Reader) in the subject of Journalism-University vide order dated 19.9.2008 (Annexure P2). Prior to this appointment, in the year 2005-06, the Petitioner was appointed as a Reader on contract basis in the Respondent/University and Respondent 4 Shailendra Khandelwal was also appointed as a Lecturer on contract basis for a period of one year. However, on the basis of some statement made by the Petitioner the contractual period of Respondent 4 Shailendra Khandelwal was not extended. Due to this, he adopted enmity and revengeful attitude against the Petitioner. Respondent 4 Shailendra Khandelwal preferred a petition, being Writ Petition (S) No.5286 of 2009 before this Court and also filed a complaint before the Chhattisgarh Lok Ayog as well as before the Chancellor of the Respondent/University against the recommendation of the selection committee upon which the Chancellor constituted a committee. The then Secretary of the General Administration Department, namely, Ms. Nidhi Chhibber inquired into the matter and submitted her report on 9.8.2010 (Annexure P4) (henceforth ‘the NC Report’). The Chhattisgarh Lok Ayog also inquired into the matter and submitted its recommendation on 12.8.2014 (Annexure P5). The then Secretary of the General Administration Department, namely, Ms. Nidhi Chhibber inquired into the matter and submitted her report on 9.8.2010 (Annexure P4) (henceforth ‘the NC Report’). The Chhattisgarh Lok Ayog also inquired into the matter and submitted its recommendation on 12.8.2014 (Annexure P5). Neither the NC Report nor the report of the Chhattisgarh Lok Ayog made any recommendation against the appointment of the Petitioner. Meanwhile, in the year 2020, Respondent 3 was appointed as Vice-Chancellor of the Respondent/University. The appointment of Respondent 3 has been challenged by the Petitioner on various grounds before this Court in Writ Petition (S) No.1234 of 2023, which is still pending. During pendency of Writ Petition (S) No.1234 of 2023, a meeting of the Executive Council of the Respondent/University was held on 15.6.2023 and without following the due process of law and without giving any opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner, a resolution has been passed by the Executive Council of the Respondent/University for termination of services of the Petitioner. Writ Petition (S) No.3760 of 2023 has been filed by the Petitioner challenging the resolution dated 15.6.2023 in which on 21.6.2023 notices have been issued by this Court. Just one day prior to 21.6.2023, i.e., on 20.6.2023, a show cause notice (Annexure P12) has been issued by the Registrar of the Respondent/University to the Petitioner. Vide letter dated 26.6.2023, the Petitioner demanded copies of the relevant documents, but, the Registrar refused him to supply copies of those documents and directed him to submit response of the show cause notice. Under these panic circumstances, the Petitioner submitted his response and without placing the same before the appointing authority, the impugned order dated 13.7.2023 (Annexure P1) has been passed, whereby services of the Petitioner has been terminated. Hence, the instant writ petition by the Petitioner. 3. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that before passing the impugned order the Respondent/University did not afford any opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner. Further, no inquiry was conducted nor was any charge-sheet issued to the Petitioner by the appointing authority. The Respondent/authority deliberately violated the well settled provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India and also violated the provisions of Statute No.17 of the Respondent/University. Neither the Vice-Chancellor nor the Registrar of the Respondent/University holds the status of appointing authority and, therefore, the Respondent/authority acted against the Petitioner without authority of law. The Respondent/authority deliberately violated the well settled provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India and also violated the provisions of Statute No.17 of the Respondent/University. Neither the Vice-Chancellor nor the Registrar of the Respondent/University holds the status of appointing authority and, therefore, the Respondent/authority acted against the Petitioner without authority of law. The provisions of Statute No.17 of the Respondent/University are mandatory in nature and the impugned order has been passed in violation of Clause 58(3) of Statute No.17. He further submitted that as per the allegation made by the University the Petitioner used fake experience certificate dated 7.4.2005 (Annexure P27) for getting appointment in the University. However, in this regard, no show cause notice has been issued by the University nor has any opportunity of hearing been afforded to the Petitioner to make his statement. Thus, there was violation of principles of natural justice. He further submitted that there is nothing against the Petitioner in the NC Report as well as in the recommendation of Chhattisgarh Lok Ayog. Therefore, for creating false and fabricated report against the Petitioner the Vice-Chancellor without any provision of law had constituted Micro Inquiry Committee and on the basis of the report submitted by the said committee the impugned order has been passed. He further submitted that the report of the said committee dated 9.2.2023 was also not supplied to the Petitioner. No statement of the Petitioner was recorded by the said committee. Reliance was placed on Marathwada University v. Seshrao Balwant Rao Chavan, (1989) 3 SCC 132 , Union of India v. Mahendra Singh, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 909, Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna, (2004) 6 SCC 714 , Ashok Ram Parhad v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 265 and Union of India v. B.V. Gopinath, (2014) 1 SCC 351 . 4. Learned Counsel appearing for Respondents 1 and 2 submitted that the impugned order dated 13.7.2023 (Annexure P1) has been passed by the Respondent/University on the basis of NC Report dated 9.8.2010 (Annexure P4), Chhattisgarh Lok Ayog recommendation dated 12.8.2014 (Annexure P5) and the report dated 9.2.2023 (Annexure R20) submitted by the Micro Inquiry Committee. Before passing of the impugned order, proper show cause notice was served to the Petitioner in compliance with Statute No.17 of the University, but, no satisfactory reply was submitted by the Petitioner. Before passing of the impugned order, proper show cause notice was served to the Petitioner in compliance with Statute No.17 of the University, but, no satisfactory reply was submitted by the Petitioner. The Petitioner has nowhere replied about the true facts of the certificate, genuineness of which is doubted and, therefore, while passing the impugned order, the very fact has been considered and the order of removal of the Petitioner from service has been passed. He further submitted that the Registrar is the administrative head of the University and every order is passed with his signature. He further submitted that the Micro Inquiry Committee was formed on the basis of direction issued by the Chhattisgarh Lok Ayog as well as by the State Government. The report of the Micro Inquiry Committee and the verification report of the Guru Ghasidas University clearly state that there was no such certificate issued to the Petitioner which clearly shows that the Petitioner has committed a fraud. He submitted that when fraud is there then it vitiates everything. In the case of fraud, the protection under Article 311 of the Constitution of India is not available. Thus, the Petitioner has rightly been removed from the service. Reliance was placed on R. Vishwanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala, (2004) 2 SCC 105 , Bank of India v. Avinash D. Mandivikar, (2005) 7 SCC 690 , Chairman and Managing Director, Food Corporation of India v. Jagdish Balaram Bahira, (2017) 8 SCC 670 , Jainendra Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh through Principal Secretary, Home, (2012) 8 SCC 748 and District Primary School Council, West Bengal v. Mritunjoy Das, (2011) 15 SCC 111 . 5. Learned Counsel appearing for Respondents 3 to 5 and Learned Counsel appearing for the Intervener submitted that they adopt the contentions raised by Learned Counsel for Respondents 1 and 2. 6. I have heard the contentions put-forth on behalf of the parties and perused the material available with due care. 7. The first ground taken by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that as the Executive Council of the University is the appointing authority of the Petitioner, therefore, the only appointing authority, i.e., the Executive Council is empowered for imposition of penalty upon the employees. 7. The first ground taken by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that as the Executive Council of the University is the appointing authority of the Petitioner, therefore, the only appointing authority, i.e., the Executive Council is empowered for imposition of penalty upon the employees. According to the Learned Counsel, the impugned order dated 13.7.2023 (Annexure P1) was passed by the Registrar of the Respondent/University, who is not empowered to pass such order and on this ground the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 8. It is not in dispute on the point that as per Clause 5(a) of Statute No.17 of the Respondent/University, the Executive Council of the University is appointing authority of the Petitioner. As per Clause 23(thirty two) of the Chhattisgarh Kushabhau Thakre Patrakarita Avam Jansanchar University Act, 2004 (henceforth ‘2004 Act’) the Executive Council of the University has the power to regulate and enforce discipline among members of the teaching, administrative and ministerial staff of the University. Clause 58 of Statute 17 of the University again empowers the Executive Council to impose penalty of removal from service. Thus, it is quite vivid that the Executive Council of the University is the appointing authority of the Petitioner and the Executive Council is also empowered to terminate the services of the Petitioner. 9. So far as the contention of Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the impugned order dated 13.7.2023 (Annexure P1) has been passed by the Registrar of the Respondent/University, who is not empowered to pass such order, is concerned, a bare perusal of the minutes of the Executive Council dated 15.6.2023 (Annexure P10) clearly shows that in the meeting dated 15.6.2023 the Executive Council took a decision for removal of the Petitioner from service and accordingly empowered the Registrar of the Respondent/University for taking further legal and administration action. The impugned order dated 13.7.2023 (Annexure P1) also shows that as empowered by the Executive Council, the Registrar has passed the order of termination of the Petitioner. Therefore, it cannot be said that the impugned order dated 13.7.2023 has been passed by the Registrar of the Respondent/University without having any authority. Therefore, I do not find any substance in the argument raised by Learned Counsel for the Petitioner in this regard. 10. Therefore, it cannot be said that the impugned order dated 13.7.2023 has been passed by the Registrar of the Respondent/University without having any authority. Therefore, I do not find any substance in the argument raised by Learned Counsel for the Petitioner in this regard. 10. The second ground taken by Learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the impugned order dated 13.7.2023 (Annexure P1) has been passed in violation of sub-clause (3) of Clause 58 of Statute No.17 of the University as well as in violation of the provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. 11. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to reproduce Clause 58(3) of Statute No.17 of the University and Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India, which run thus : “58. 1. The appointing authority may, for good and sufficient reasons, impose on an employee the following penalties:- (a) Censure: (b) Recovery from his pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused by him to the University by negligence or breach of orders; (c) Withholding of increments of pay; (d) Reduction to lower time scale of pay grade or post; (e) Compulsory retirement; (f) Removal from service; (g) Dismissal from service which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment in the University, Besides the above, the penalty of fine not exceeding Rupees five may be imposed on a class IV employee for petty carelessness, unpunctuality, idleness or similar Misconduct of a minor nature. 2. The appointing authority may institute disciplinary proceeding against an employee of the University. 3. No order imposing any the penalties specified in sub paragraph (1) above other than fine shall be made except in accordance with the procedure for imposing penalties on Government servant prescribed by the Chhattisgarh Government and in force at the time the appointing authority orders an inquiry against the employee concerned.” “311. Dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of persons employed in civil capacities under the Union or a State—(1) No person who is a member of a civil service of the Union or an all-India service or a civil service of a State or holds a civil post under the Union or a State shall be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed. (2) No such person as aforesaid shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank except after an inquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges: Provided that where it is proposed after such inquiry, to impose upon him any such penalty, such penalty may be imposed on the basis of the evidence adduced during such inquiry and it shall not be necessary to give such person any opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed: Provided further that this clause shall not apply— (a) where a person is dismissed or removed or reduced in rank on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge; or (b) where the authority empowered to dismiss or remove a person or to reduce him in rank is satisfied that for some reason, to be recorded by that authority in writing, it is not reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry; or (c) where the President or the Governor, as the case may be, is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State it is not expedient to hold such inquiry. (3) If in respect of any such person as aforesaid, a question arises whether it is reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry as is referred to in clause (2), the decision thereon of the authority empowered to dismiss or remove such person or to reduce him in rank shall be final.” 12. It was the contention of Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that since the Petitioner was a permanent employee of the Respondent/University, before imposing the penalty of removal from service a departmental inquiry was necessary. In this case, no departmental inquiry was conducted nor was any opportunity of hearing afforded to the Petitioner. Therefore, on this ground, the impugned order dated 13.7.2023 (Annexure P1) as well as the recommendation of the Micro Inquiry Committee dated 9.2.2023 (Annexure R20) are bad in law. 13. In this case, no departmental inquiry was conducted nor was any opportunity of hearing afforded to the Petitioner. Therefore, on this ground, the impugned order dated 13.7.2023 (Annexure P1) as well as the recommendation of the Micro Inquiry Committee dated 9.2.2023 (Annexure R20) are bad in law. 13. In counter, Shri Vikram Sharma, Learned Counsel appearing for Respondents 1 and 2 contended that as the impugned order dated 13.7.2023 (Annexure P1) is based on the NC Report dated 9.8.2010 (Annexure P4), Chhattisgarh Lok Ayog Recommendation dated 12.8.2014 (Annexure P5) and Report of the Micro Inquiry Committee dated 9.2.2023 (Annexure R20), before passing the impugned order (Annexure P1) a show cause notice was issued to the Petitioner. Therefore, a fair opportunity of hearing was afforded to the Petitioner. Thus, the impugned order (Annexure P1) is passed on the basis of recommendation of the Executive Council. 14. The concluding part of the NC Report dated 9.8.2010 (Annexure P4) reads thus : “…… It would be safe to conclude, that while the University adopted the 80:20 formula for assessing the merit of the candidates, as recommended by the Chancellor and laid down a division of marks in both components, the selection committees, did not adhere to the laid down division of marks and awarded marks, arbitrarily and in some cases carelessly, not taking into account the particulars, submitted in the applications. …..” The Nidhi Chhibber Committee further suggested as under : “….. it is suggested that a mechanism should be put in place, either in the University or the Department of Higher education to look into complaints of such nature and redress them. Sometimes mistakes like incorrect totaling of marks, or clerical errors may occur, which should be corrected, through this mechanism, which would prevent unnecessary and time consuming litigation. It is further suggested that a record of discussions in the selection committee on the merit of candidates should form a part of the minutes of selection committee, which will make the process more transparent. (In fact where presentation of assessment of published works is called in it, such a record may be necessary anyway)” 15. It is further suggested that a record of discussions in the selection committee on the merit of candidates should form a part of the minutes of selection committee, which will make the process more transparent. (In fact where presentation of assessment of published works is called in it, such a record may be necessary anyway)” 15. The concluding part of the Chhattisgarh Lok Ayog’s recommendation dated 12.8.2014 (Annexure P5) reads as under : ^^------- vr% vuqeksnu gks rks %& 1- ;w-th-lh- ds fu;ekuqlkj rFkk fo'ofo|ky; leUo; lfefr ds cSBd fnukad 05-03-2005 dks fo"k; Øekad 3 ds laca/k esa fy;s x;s fu.kZ; ds vuqlkj HkrhZ ds le; 80 izfr'kr vad tks mEehnokjksa dks muds vdknfed] 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk ,oa vuqHko ds vk/kkj ij iznku fd;k x;k gS] mls iqu% iqueZwY;kadu ,oa la'kksf/kr dj izR;sd mEehnokj dks 80 izfr'kr vad esa ls vad iznku djrs gq;s] lk{kkRdkj ds vad dks tksM+ dj esfjV cuk;k tkdj ;ksX; ik;s tkus ij lacaf/kr mEehnokjksa dk p;u djsa vkSj bl izfØ;k esa v;ksX; ik;s tkus okys iwoZ esa p;fur mEehnokjksa ds fo:) fof/k vuqlkj dk;Zokgh djsaA 2- izfri{kh Jh lfPpnkuan tks'kh] dqyifr] dq'kkHkkÅ Bkdjs i=dkfjrk ,oa tu lapkj fo'ofo|ky;] jk;iqj tks fd mDr HkrhZ esa xfBr p;u lfefr ds v/;{k Hkh Fks] ds fo:) vopkj dk rF; izFke n`"V;k izekf.kr gksus ls ekuuh; egkefge jkT;iky egksn;] N-x- dks /kkjk 11¼1½ N-x- yksd vk;ksx vf/kfu;e 2002 ds varxZr fof/k vuqlkj ;Fkksfpr dk;Zokgh dj dh xbZ dk;Zokgh ls vk;ksx dks lwfpr djus gsrq vuq'kalk fd;k tkuk izLrkfor gSA** 16. A careful perusal of the above-quoted concluding parts of the NC Report dated 9.8.2010 (Annexure P4) and the recommendation of the Chhattisgarh Lok Ayog dated 12.8.2014 (Annexure P5) clearly shows that there is nothing against the Petitioner in the concluding parts of both the reports nor did any of the two reports recommend for taking any specific action against the Petitioner. Rather, Chhattisgarh Lok Ayog recommendation was against the then Vice-Chancellor of the Respondent/University only. 17. It is pertinent to note here the fact that the NC Report was submitted on 9.8.2010 (Annexure P4) and the recommendation of the Chhattisgarh Lok Ayog was submitted on 12.8.2014 (Annexure P5). Rather, Chhattisgarh Lok Ayog recommendation was against the then Vice-Chancellor of the Respondent/University only. 17. It is pertinent to note here the fact that the NC Report was submitted on 9.8.2010 (Annexure P4) and the recommendation of the Chhattisgarh Lok Ayog was submitted on 12.8.2014 (Annexure P5). After passing of more than 8 years, on the basis of communication made by the Under Secretary, Higher Education Department dated 21.11.2022 (Annexure R18), the Registrar of the Respondent/University on 29.12.2022 formed a 3-member Micro Inquiry Committee and this Micro Inquiry Committee submitted its report on 9.2.2023 (Annexure R20) and the Executive Council in its meeting dated 15.6.2023 accepted the report of the Micro Inquiry Committee and passed the resolution of termination of the Petitioner from service. 18. A careful perusal of the report of the Micro Inquiry Committee also shows that before recommendation of the termination of the Petitioner, this committee also did not afford any opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner nor was his statement recorded by the Micro Inquiry Committee. It was found by the Micro Inquiry Committee that the questioned document/experience certificate dated 7.4.2005 (Annexure P27) was a forged document as it was not issued by the Guru Ghasidas University. The Respondent/University relied the communication dated 22.3.2023 (Annexure R23), whereby the Registrar of the Guru Ghasidas University informed the Registrar of the Respondent/University that the original copies of the questioned documents are not available with Guru Ghasidas University as the same are 20 years old documents. The Petitioner submitted the questioned document/experience certificate dated 7.4.2005 (Annexure P27) which he had obtained under the Right to Information Act on 29.9.2023. Thus, it appears that the questioned document dated 7.4.2005 is available with the Guru Ghasidas University. Therefore, it was essential for the Micro Inquiry Committee that before passing any recommendation of termination of the Petitioner from service, at least the Petitioner should have been given a show cause notice or his statement should have been recorded. But, none of the two steps was taken by the Micro Inquiry Committee. 19. From the foregoing discussion, it is clear that the Nidhi Chhibber Committee and the Chhattisgarh Lok Ayog have not made any recommendation against the Petitioner. Rather, the Chhattisgarh Lok Ayog recommended an action against the then Vice-Chancellor only. But, none of the two steps was taken by the Micro Inquiry Committee. 19. From the foregoing discussion, it is clear that the Nidhi Chhibber Committee and the Chhattisgarh Lok Ayog have not made any recommendation against the Petitioner. Rather, the Chhattisgarh Lok Ayog recommended an action against the then Vice-Chancellor only. It is also clear that even after submission of the NC Report and the recommendation of the Chhattisgarh Lok Ayog, the Respondent/University kept mum. When the communication of the Under Secretary, Higher Education Department dated 21.11.2022 (Annexure R18) was received by the Respondent/University then only the Registrar of the Respondent/University formed the Micro Inquiry Committee. The formation of the Micro Inquiry Committee was also not recommended by the Executive Council. It is also clear that the Micro Inquiry Committee, before passing its recommendation, did not afford any opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner nor did it issue him any show cause notice. 20. Learned Counsel for Respondents 1 and 2 relying on the judgment of Vishwanatha Pillai (supra) submitted that in the case in hand it was found by the Micro Inquiry Committee that at the time of appointment the document dated 7.4.2005 (questioned document) submitted by the Petitioner was not in existence and, therefore, the Petitioner committed a fraud and by adopting the fraud practice he obtained the employment. In case of a fraud, the protection of Article 311 of the Constitution of India is not available to the Petitioner. In case of Vishwanatha Pillai (supra), the Supreme Court observed and held as under : “13. We do not find any substance in this submission. The misconduct alleged against the appellant is that he entered the service against reserved post meant for a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe on the basis of a false caste certificate. While appointing the appellant as Deputy Superintendent of Police in the year 1977, he was considered as belonging to the Scheduled Caste. This was found to be wrong and his appointment is to be treated as cancelled. This action has been taken not for any misconduct of the appellant during his tenure as civil servant but on the finding that he does not belong to the Scheduled Caste as claimed by him before his appointment to the post. This was found to be wrong and his appointment is to be treated as cancelled. This action has been taken not for any misconduct of the appellant during his tenure as civil servant but on the finding that he does not belong to the Scheduled Caste as claimed by him before his appointment to the post. As to whether the certificate produced by him was genuine or not was examined in detail by KIRTADS and the Scrutiny Committee constituted under the orders of this Court. The appellant was given due opportunity to defend himself. The order passed by the Scrutiny Committee was upheld by the High Court and later on by this Court. On close scrutiny of facts, we find that the safeguard provided in Article 311 of the Constitution that the government servant should not be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank without holding an inquiry in which he has been given an opportunity to defend himself, stands complied with. Instead of departmental inquiry, the inquiry has been conducted by the Scrutiny Committee consisting of three officers, namely: (I) an Additional or Joint Secretary or any officer higher in rank of the Director of the Department concerned, (II) the Director, Social Welfare/Tribal Welfare/Backward Class Welfare, as the case may be, and (III) in the case of Scheduled Castes, another officer having intimate knowledge in the verification and issuance of the social status certificates, who were better equipped to examine the question regarding the validity or otherwise of the caste certificate. Due opportunity was given to the appellant to put forth his point of view and defend himself. The issuance of a fresh notice under the Rules for proving the same misconduct which has already been examined by an independent body constituted under the direction of this Court, the decision of which has already been upheld up to this Court would be repetitive as well as futile. The second safeguard in Article 311 that the order of dismissal, removal and reduction in rank should not be passed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed has also been met with. The impugned order terminating the services of the appellant has been passed by his appointing authority. 15. This apart, the appellant obtained the appointment in the service on the basis that he belonged to a Scheduled Caste community. The impugned order terminating the services of the appellant has been passed by his appointing authority. 15. This apart, the appellant obtained the appointment in the service on the basis that he belonged to a Scheduled Caste community. When it was found by the Scrutiny Committee that he did not belong to the Scheduled Caste community, then the very basis of his appointment was taken away. His appointment was no appointment in the eye of the law. He cannot claim a right to the post as he had usurped the post meant for a reserved candidate by playing a fraud and producing a false caste certificate. Unless the appellant can lay a claim to the post on the basis of his appointment he cannot claim the constitutional guarantee given under Article 311 of the Constitution. As he had obtained the appointment on the basis of a false caste certificate he cannot be considered to be a person who holds a post within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. Finding recorded by the Scrutiny Committee that the appellant got the appointment on the basis of a false caste certificate has become final. The position, therefore, is that the appellant has usurped the post which should have gone to a member of the Scheduled Castes. In view of the finding recorded by the Scrutiny Committee and upheld up to this Court, he has disqualified himself to hold the post. The appointment was void from its inception. It cannot be said that the said void appointment would enable the appellant to claim that he was holding a civil post within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. As the appellant had obtained the appointment by playing a fraud, he cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own fraud in entering the service and claim that he was holder of the post entitled to be dealt with in terms of Article 311 of the Constitution of India or the Rules framed thereunder. Where an appointment in a service has been acquired by practising fraud or deceit, such an appointment is no appointment in law, in service and in such a situation Article 311 of the Constitution is not attracted at all.” 21. In Vishwanatha Pillai (supra), the Petitioner therein obtained the employment by producing a false caste certificate. Where an appointment in a service has been acquired by practising fraud or deceit, such an appointment is no appointment in law, in service and in such a situation Article 311 of the Constitution is not attracted at all.” 21. In Vishwanatha Pillai (supra), the Petitioner therein obtained the employment by producing a false caste certificate. The said false caste certificate was scrutinised by the Caste Scrutiny Committee and on the basis of the report of the said scrutiny committee the Petitioner therein was terminated. The Caste Scrutiny Committee had afforded an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner therein and thereafter gave its report. But, in the instant case, the Micro Inquiry Committee did not afford any opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner nor did it even record his statement and it made the recommendation for his termination and on the basis of this recommendation only, further, without affording any proper opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner, the Executive Council also passed the resolution for termination of the Petitioner and, therefore, Vishwanatha Pillai (supra) is not applicable to the present case. Looking to the above, it is well established that as no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the Petitioner by the Micro Inquiry Committee nor was by the Executive Council of the University before passing their recommendations, the impugned order dated 13.7.2023 (Annexure P1) was also passed without conducting any departmental inquiry against the Petitioner. 22. In view of the foregoing, the impugned order dated 13.7.2023 (Annexure P1) is liable to be and is accordingly set aside. The instant writ petition is allowed. Respondents No.1 and 2 are directed to reinstate the services of the Petitioner forthwith with all consequential benefits for which the Petitioner is entitled in accordance with the relevant rules and law. It is also made clear that this order shall not prevent Respondents 1 and 2 to take any action into the matter in accordance with law, if they so desire.