ORDER Saraf, J. -- 1. Instant intra court appeal is preferred by appellants assailing order dated 31.05.2024 1.05.2024 passed by learned Single Judge in WP No.29611/2023 whereby the writ petition preferred by respondent ent No.1 (original petitioner) was allowed and minutes dated 01.12.2023 passed by Executive Council of Dr. Hari Singh Gour University, Sagar were set aside and the responde respondent No.1/petitioner was directed to be reinstated on the post of Registrar of the University. 2. Parties have advanced arguments for the purpose of final disposal of the instant writ appeal. 3. Short facts of the case are as under;-- 3.1 Appellant No.2/University issued an advertisement on 2.2.2022 and invited applications for the post inter alia Registrar from the eligible candidates. 3.2 Respondent No.1- No.1 Dr. Ranjan Kumar Pradhan (hereinafter referred to as 'petitioner') online applied for the post of Registrar on 15.3.2022 and the Executive Council ouncil of the University (hereinafter referred eferred to as 'appellant') in its 29th Meeting held on 20th December, 2022 on the recommendation of the Screening and Selection Committee approved his appointment to the post of Registrar in the University at the Pay Level - 14 and consequently on 29.12.2022 22 appointment order was issued. 3.3 Petitioner was relieved by DRT Guwahati Guwah vide order dated 29.12.2022. However, NITI Aayog (National Institution itution for Transforming India) accepted the voluntarily retirement request of the petitioner on 7.3.2023 and therefore, the petitioner could not join on the post of Registrar of the appellant University immediately. Thereafter, the University verified information from NITI Aayog as well as DRT Guwahati regarding experience of the petitioner and issued a show cause notice to him mentioning therein that as per the information received from NITI Aayog Aayog, it is found that he does not fulfill the requisite period of qualifying service and he had furnished false information in order to secure appoint appointment on the post of Registrar. Before issuance of show cause notice, a Committee examined the documents and submitted the report on 8.11.2023 recommending cancellation of appointment of petitioner. 3.4 Petitioner submitted ubmitted his reply to show cause notice dated dated 13.11.2023 13.11.2023, wherein he denied all the allegations and submits that hat he is eligible and satisfies all the requirements requirement for appointment to the post of Registrar. 3.4 Petitioner submitted ubmitted his reply to show cause notice dated dated 13.11.2023 13.11.2023, wherein he denied all the allegations and submits that hat he is eligible and satisfies all the requirements requirement for appointment to the post of Registrar. However, the Executive Council resolved on 1.12.2023 to recall the appointment order of petitioner peti and to remove him from the post of Registrar with immediate effect on the allegation that he does not fulfill eligibility criteria for the post of Registrar in terms of qualification and experience prescribed in Advertisement dated 2.2.2022. Notif Notification dated 02.11.2017 issued by Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of Higher Education, New Delhi was also relied by the Executive Council, which provides the required qualification for the post of Registrar of University. 3.5 Petitioner assailed the show cause notice dated 13.11.2023, communication dated 20.11.2023 and Resolution dated 1.12.2023 in WP No.29611/2023 on various grounds inter alia the petitioner possesses the requisite work experience and was fully qualified and eligible for appointment to the post of Registrar and without any Departmental Enquiry, the services of the petitioner could not be terminated. 3.6 Learned Single Judge by order dated 31.5.2024 allowed the petition filed by the petitioner mainly on the ground that the impugned order dated 1.12.2023 suffers from violation of principles of natural justice as before terminating the services of the petitioner, no regular departmental mental enquiry was conducted and prima facie it was not not clear that petitioner suppressed any material or supplied false informations. The learned Single Judge ordered to reinstate the petitioner in service with immediate effect with all consequential benefits. The he order passed by learned Single Judge on 31.5.2024 is under challenge in the instant writ appeal preferred by the University. 4. The petitioner claimed claim that he was initially appointed in Planning Commission, NITI Aayog on the post of Research Officer on 7.3.2001 and thereafter on adhoc basis w.e.f. 20.11.2006 as Senior Research Officer and was regularized on the same post vide order dated 19.11.2007 by NITI Aayog.. 4. The petitioner claimed claim that he was initially appointed in Planning Commission, NITI Aayog on the post of Research Officer on 7.3.2001 and thereafter on adhoc basis w.e.f. 20.11.2006 as Senior Research Officer and was regularized on the same post vide order dated 19.11.2007 by NITI Aayog.. He discharged his duties as Senior Research Officer from 20.11.2006 to 1.11.2019 1.11.2019 and during intervening period i.e. 2013 - 2019 in NITI Aayog, he had also discharged duties as Deputy Advisor (Pay Level 12) on adhoc basis and was continued in the aforesaid employment and later on discharged duties as Registrar, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Guwahati from 2.11.2019 to 14.3.2022. 4.1 As per the petitioner, the requirement of qualifying ser service for the post of Registrar as described in advertisement dated 2.2.2022, the petitioner possesses sufficient research experience and he duly described the details in the application submitted by him. He claimed that he has more than 25 years work experience on compassing diversed field of research, administration and judicial matter including more than 15 years of government service in Research and Administration Administrati areas in Pay Level 11 and above. On the basis of aforesaid claim of the petitioner made in the application, the selection committee of the University recommended for his selection for the post of Registrar, Registrar considering the information correct and true. Later on, the correspondence were made ma with NITI Aayog and DRT, Guwahati for the purpose of verification of the informations submitted by the petitioner in the application and it was revealed that petitioner was not possessing requisite qualification for the post of Registrar and, therefore, the show cause notice was issued. 5. Learned senior counsel Mrs. Shobha Menon appearing on behalf of appellant submits that the information supplied by the petitioner was found false on verification and the matter was put before a committee who after examining ining the informations information received from NITI Aayog found petitioner ineligible, therefore, recommended for cancellation of the appointment of petitioner and after issuance of show cause notice dated 13.11.2023 and providing all opportunities to the petitioner, the matter was put up before the Executive Council of University on 1.12.2023 and a resolution was passed to recalll the appointment order of the petitioner and remove him from the post of Registrar. She further submits that as the resolution was passed to recall the appointment order based on the information received in verification process, there was no requirement to hold any departmental enquiry. However, for the purpose of granting adequate opportunity to the petitioner,, show cause notice was issued and petitioner was provided opportunity to explain the allegations. She submits that principles of natural justice were adhered and no illegality or irregularity committed by the Executive Council in recalling the appointment order of the petiti petitioner. She further submits that claim of the petitioner that he had rendered service services as Deputy Advisor (Pay Level 12) in NITI Aayog from 11.2.2013 to 1.11.2019 (6 years and 8 months) and before that as Senior Research Officer (Pay Level 11) from 21.11.2006 21.11.20 to 10.2.2013 2.2013 (6 years and 2 months) as well Research Officer (Pay Level 10) from 7.3.2001 to 20.11.2006 (5 years and 8 months) and as Registrar of DRT Guwahati (Pay Level 12) from 2.11.2019 2.11.2019 to 14.3.2022 (2 years and 4 months) on regular basis was found ound false upon verification. 6. She further submits that declaration made by the petitioner in the application was found incorrect rendering him ineligible for the post of Registrar. It is pointed out by the learned senior counsel that as per the advertisement the requisite qualification for the post of Registrar was as under: Non-Teaching Group A post. Post Code Post Registrar-01 (UR) NTIQI Pay Scale Level 14 - Rs. 144200-218200 Age Limit, Qualification and Experience Preferably below 57 years Essential: Method of recruitment (i) Masters Degree with at least 55% of the marks or an equivalent grade in a  point scale wherever grading system is followed. (ii) Atleast Fifteen years' of experience as Assistant Professor in the Academic Level 11 and above or with the Eight years' of service in the Academic Level 12 and above including as Associate Professor along with experience in educational administration, or Comparable experience in a research establishment and/ or other institutions of higher education or Fifteen years of administrative experience, of which Eight years shall be as Deputy Registrar or an equivalent lent post. Direct/Deputation for a term of Five years or will attaining the age of 62 years, whichever is earlier (Eligible for reappointment after observance of due selection process) 7. Direct/Deputation for a term of Five years or will attaining the age of 62 years, whichever is earlier (Eligible for reappointment after observance of due selection process) 7. It is also pointed out from the advertisement that in Clause 9 of the advertisement, it was specifically mentioned that if the information supplied by the candidate is found incorrect in future, the appointment shall be liable to be terminated forthwith and the decision of the Executive Committee shall be final. Clause 9 reads as under:-- 9. It shall be the responsibility of the candidate to assess his/her own eligibility for the post for which he/she is applying in accordance with the prescribed qualifications, experience, etc., and suo moto his application duly filled-in, along with the desired information and documents as per the advertisement. Suppression of factual information, supply of fake documents, providing false or misleading information or canvassing in any manner on the part of the candidates shall lead to his disqualification. In case, it is detected at any point of lime in future, even after appointment, that the candidate was notno eligible, his appointment shall be liable to be terminated forthwith as per this clause. This must must be mentioned in the letter of offer and appointment clearly. In case of any ambiguity in the he recruitment rules in general and eligibility in particular for any post, the decision of the Executive ecutive Council shall be final." 8. Learned senior counsel pointed pointed out that as per the required qualification,, petitioner ought to have experience with 8 years of service in the academic level 12 and above. However, petitioner had not worked as Deputy Advisor (Pay Level 12) continuously during 2013 - 2019 and the total period of working as Deputy Advisor (Pay Level 12) re reckons to 04 years 10 months and 14 days, whereas, the petitioner claimed ed 06 years 08 months without considering the period of intervals when he was not working as Deputy Advisor (Pay Level 12). Petitioner worked as Registrar, DRT Guwahati for 02 2 years and 044 months and the total period of experience in Pay Level 12 comes to 07 years 02 months and 14 days, which was less than the required 08 years. 9. Mrs. Petitioner worked as Registrar, DRT Guwahati for 02 2 years and 044 months and the total period of experience in Pay Level 12 comes to 07 years 02 months and 14 days, which was less than the required 08 years. 9. Mrs. Shobha Menon, learned senior counsel further further submits that petitioner was removed as per the enabling clause 9 and 10 of the advertisement and even in the appointment appointment order, it was specified in clause 5 that his appointment is subject to verification of documents submitted by him and in future, iff it is detected that the documents or information informations are not genuine, the University shall be entitled to take appropriate action. Mrs. Menon placed reliance upon the judgment reported in 2019 (3) SCC 422 (Ritu Bhatia tia vs. Ministry of Civil Supplies Consumers Consumers Affairs and Public Distribution and others) and 2023 (7) SCC 536 (Satish Chandra Yadav v. Union of India and others). 9.1 She further submits that if the information supplied in the recruitment application were not found true upon verification,, the appointment order could be cancelled or recalled after issuance of show cause notice and providing an opportunity to the aspirant to explain the same and holding of departmental enquiry was not required. She further submits that learned Single Judge erroneously held that there was no suppression on the part of the appellant and it was not clear prima facie that appellant has conveyed any false information. The requirement of departmental enquiry as held by the learned Single Judge is also not in accordance accor with the settled position of law. She prays for allowing the appeal and setting aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 10. Per contra,, Mr. Manoj Sharma, learned senior counsel for the respondents supported the order passed by the learned learned Single Judge and submits that only on the basis of verification report received from NITI Aayog,, the allegation was leveled against the petitioner that he did not fulfill the basic eligibility qualification and did not possess the required qualification and experience for the appointment of the post of Registrar. However, the certificate issued by the NITI Aayog itself submitted along with recruitment application reveals that petitioner were at Pay Level 12 as Deputy Advisor in NITI Aayog from 11.2.2013 to 1.11.2019 1.11.2019 and the period comes to 06 6 years 088 months. However, the certificate issued by the NITI Aayog itself submitted along with recruitment application reveals that petitioner were at Pay Level 12 as Deputy Advisor in NITI Aayog from 11.2.2013 to 1.11.2019 1.11.2019 and the period comes to 06 6 years 088 months. He further submits that it is not in dispute that petitioner was working as Registrar in DRT Guwahati at Pay Level 12 from 2.11.2019 2.11.2019 to 14.3.2022, therefore, he was having total experience of 09 9 years at Pay Level 12. He further submits that whatever information supplied by the petitioner along with the recruitment application was true and correct and based upon the certificate issued by the relevant employer. After petitioner applied for the post st of Registrar, selection committee considered the documents and after fter scrutinization being satisfied and found the petitioner eligible. The he committee recommended the petitioner to be selected for the post of Registrar. It is not the case of the University that the certificates submitted by the petitioner along with the recruitment application were not issued by NITI Aayog and were false and fabricated. He further submits that as the petitioner joined the service on 7.3.2023, after a period of 08 8 months, the show cause notice was issued and during this period the petitioner worked work satisfactorily and, therefore, as per Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 1965, which are applicable to the employees employee of the University as per Ord Ordinance 41 conducting a regular departmental enquiry was essential and the petitioner could not be removed from the service without holding any departmental enquiry. He relied on the judgment of Supreme Court delivered in the matter of Sandeep Kumar v. GB Pant Institute of Engineering and 541, wherein it Technology Ghurdauri and others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 54 is observed by the Supreme Court that dismissal on the ground of non disclosure of necessary information or suppression of the material facts, without any show cause or any sort s of inquiry, is illegal. 11. He further submits that the order of cancellation of appointment is stigmatic and punitive in nature; therefore, the same could not be passed without conducting a proper inquiry. He relied on the judgmen judgment of Coordinate Bench in ILR (2001) MP 1144 delivered in the matter of Rahul others, wherein Tripathi Vs. 11. He further submits that the order of cancellation of appointment is stigmatic and punitive in nature; therefore, the same could not be passed without conducting a proper inquiry. He relied on the judgmen judgment of Coordinate Bench in ILR (2001) MP 1144 delivered in the matter of Rahul others, wherein Tripathi Vs. Rajiv Gandhi Siksha Mission, Bhopal and others the Court has held that order of termination of a contractual employee in the nature of punitive cannot be passed passed without conducting a proper inquiry. He submits that learned Single Judge has not committed any error in holding that prima facie it is not clear that the informations information supplied by the petitioner in the recruitment application were false or incorrect and, and, therefore, before terminating the services service of the petitioner, departmental enquiry ought to have been conducted under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. He prays for dismissal of the appeal. 12. After hearing the he arguments of the parties in detail on 25.7.2024 25.7.2024, the mater was posted on 29.7.2024 and thereafter an application was moved by petitioner on 9.8.2024 8.2024 for permitting him to argue the matter as party in person. He was also granted an opportunity on 12.8.2024 to supplement the arguments advanced by learned senior counsel Mr. Manoj Sharma on his behalf and matter was reserved for orders. During the course of his additional submission, the petitioner reiterated the arguments advanced by Mr. Manoj Sharma, ma, learned senior counsel. The petitioner also filed submission of additional facts and evidence in writing on 9.8.2024 wherein the petitioner has raised an issue that the University is not accepting the request of the petitioner to supply the requisite information under RTI by which he demanded the report of scrutiny committee. The report of scrutiny committee is available on record, which reflects that the scrutiny committee after scrutinizing recommended the name of petitioner for appointment on the post ost of Registrar. He further submits that in the advertisement, the term comparable experience and equivalent posts were used though the same are not defining any of the statute or Circulars of the University and in this regard the decision of scrutiny committee committee and selection committee at the time of recruitment should be deemed as final. He further submits that in the advertisement, the term comparable experience and equivalent posts were used though the same are not defining any of the statute or Circulars of the University and in this regard the decision of scrutiny committee committee and selection committee at the time of recruitment should be deemed as final. He further tried to establish that he is possessing the requisite qualification as per option #2 & #3 of eligibility criteria and without considering the case of petitione petitioner for those options,, the services of petitioner could not be terminated. 13. We have heard the arguments in details on many dates and minutely perused the record. 14. It is not in dispute that an advertisement was issued by the University on 2.2.2022 inviting iting the applications application from the eligible candidate candidates for various non teaching posts including the Registrar and the petitioner Dr. Ranjan Kumar Pradhan applied for the post of Registrar.. As per the eligibility criteria mentioned in the advertisement as reproduced hereinabove, one of the criteria was 15 years experience as Assistant Professor in academic level 11 and above. The petitioner has not claim claimed that he possesses the experience as Assistant Professor in the academic level 11 and above. 15. The another criteria was 8 years of service in academic level 12 and above including as Associate Ass Professor along with experience in educational administration. The petitioner submitted his application and claims the eligibility under this criteria and claimed claim that he possesses the experience of more than 8 years of service in academic level 12 and submitted that he worked on that level in NITI Aayog from 11.2.2013 to 1.11.2019 1.11.2019 and as Registrar in DRT Guwahati from 2.11.2019 to 14.3.2022. To substantiate the claim of more than 088 years experience, the petitioner submitted certificate issued by NITI Aayog and DRT Guwahati. It appears that the scrutiny committee and selection committee relying on the certificate certificates submitted by the petitioner without verification, verification, accepted the same as it is and found the petitioner eligible for the post of Registrar of University and upon the recommendation of the selection committee; he was appointed on the post of Registrar. 16. It appears that the scrutiny committee and selection committee relying on the certificate certificates submitted by the petitioner without verification, verification, accepted the same as it is and found the petitioner eligible for the post of Registrar of University and upon the recommendation of the selection committee; he was appointed on the post of Registrar. 16. It also revealed from the record that later on the informations were sought from the NITI Aayog and DRT Guwahati for the purpose of verification of document and information submitted by the petitioner and NITI Aayog by letter dated 25.10.2023 submitted the information that the petitioner worked as Deputy Advisor (Pay Level 12) on adhoc basis time to time and he never held the post of Deputy Advisor (Pay Level 12) on regular basis. NITI Aayog also supplied the complete details regarding working of petitioner at pay level 12 on adhoc basis during this period and the information supplied by petitioner wherein he claimed to work as Deputy Advisor (Pay Level 12) on regular basis in NITI Aayog Aayog/Planning Commission from 11.2.2013 to 1.11.2019 (6 years 8 months 21 days) were found incorrect. As per the service verification report received from NITI Aayog,, Dr. Ranjan Kumar Pradhan (petitioner) has never hold the post of Deputy Advisor (Pay Level 12) on a regular basis in NITI Aayog, whereas in his application, he mentioned that his services were regular. He took voluntary retirement from NITI Aayog from the post of Senior Research Officer (Pay Level 11) on 7.3.2023, 3.2023, which reflects that at the time of retirement his substantive substanti post was Senior Research Officer (Pay Level evel 11). Meaning thereby, the information supplied by the petitioner in the application that he was regular employee of Pay Level 12 was incorrect. Further it was revealed that he worked as Deputy Advisor (Pay Level 12) on an adhoc basis for the following period: Service Period at Pay Level 12 as Deputy Advisor From To Years/Months 11.2.2013 10.02.2014 1 Year 26.2.2015 26.2.2015 1 Year & 1 day 25.3.2015 24.3.2016 1 Year 18.12.2017 1.11.2019 1 Year 10 Months & 13 Days Total Service Period 4 Years 10 Months & 14 Days However, he claimed ed that he worked from 11.2.2013 to 1.11.2019 (6 years 8 months) as Deputy Advisor (Pay Level 12) in NITI Aayog on regular basis. This information was also found incorrect. 17. This information was also found incorrect. 17. It is not the case of petitioner that NITI Aayog submitted a false, wrong, erroneous or incomplete report in its letter dated 25.10.2023, therefore, these facts are now un-contradicted and unchallenged. However, petitioner has tried to take the advantage of the reports of scrutiny committee and selection committee, which were based upon the certificate certificates supplied by petitioner along with his recruitment application and the petitioner cannot be permitted to take advantage of the same as the verification repo report was sought in respect of those certificates and upon verification the detailed detailed information were received from NITI Aayog. 18. Consequently, we find that the petitioner was not possessing the requisite experience as per advertisement dated 2.2.2022 and, therefore, he was not eligible and duly experienced experience for the post of Registrar of the University. 19. Learned Single Judge has failed to consider the details details supplied by NITI Aayog in its verification report dated 25.10.2023 and held that prima facie there ere is no material to raise finger against the petitioner that he has supplied incorrect or false information. 20. So far as conducting departmental enquiry as per Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, 1965, it is trite law tthat if the informations supplied in the recruitment application were found incorrect or the case of suppression of material facts fact is revealed, the appointment order can be recalled or cancelled, without holding any regular departmental enquiry as the same is not based on any conduct of employee during employment. Departmental Enquiry is required only in a case where any action is proposed against an employee on the basis of any conduct of the employee during his employment. However, time and again, Supreme Court has held that before passing any order of cancellation of appointment or recalling the appointment order, the aspirant must be given an opportunity of hearing by issuance of a show cause notice so he may explain the allegations.. However, time and again, Supreme Court has held that before passing any order of cancellation of appointment or recalling the appointment order, the aspirant must be given an opportunity of hearing by issuance of a show cause notice so he may explain the allegations.. In the case in hand, after receipt of verification report, a committee was constituted and the committee recommended for cancellation of appointment of petitioner and thereafter on 13.11.2023,, a show cause notice was issued, which was replied by the petitioner and after afford affording the sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to explain the allegations, the Executive Council of University had taken decision in its meeting dated 1.12.2023 1.12.2023 to recall the appointment of the petitioner as he does not possess the requisite experience. Therefore, it is not a case where in any stigmatic or punitive order was passed without issuance of any show cause notice. 21. The Supreme Court in the matter of Meghmala and others v. G. Narsimha Reddy and others, (2010) 8 SCC 383 has held that :-- 28. Itt is settled proposition of law that where an applicant gets an order/office by making misrepresentation or playing fraud upon the competent authority, such order cannot be sustained in the eye of the law, "Fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal" (Vide S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath) In Lazarus Estates Ltd. v. Beasley, the Court observed without equivocation that : (QB p. 712) "No judgment of a court, no order of a Minister, can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud. Fraud unravels everything." 21.1 The Supreme Court in the matter of Devendra Kumar v. State of Uttaranchal and others, (2013) 9 SCC 363 has held that :-- 13. It is a settled proposition of law that where an application gets an office by misrepresenting the facts or by playing fraud upon the competent authority, such an order cannot be sustained in the eye of the law. "Fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal." (Vide (Vide S.P. Chengalvanaya Naidu v. Jagannath). In Lazarus Estates Ltd. v. Beasley, Beasley, the Court observed without equivocation that : "-------No No judgment of a court, no order of a Minister can be allowed to stand if it is has been obtained by fraud, for fraud unravels everything." 18. "Fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal." (Vide (Vide S.P. Chengalvanaya Naidu v. Jagannath). In Lazarus Estates Ltd. v. Beasley, Beasley, the Court observed without equivocation that : "-------No No judgment of a court, no order of a Minister can be allowed to stand if it is has been obtained by fraud, for fraud unravels everything." 18. The ratio laid down by this Court in various casess is that dishonesty should not be permitted to bear the fruit and benefit those persons who have fraud or misrepresented themselves,. In such circumstances the Court should not perpetuate the fraud by entertaining petitioners on their behalf. InI the Union of India vs. M. Bhaskaran, this Court,, after placing reliance upon and approving its earlier judgment in Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi, observed as under : (M. Bhaskaran case, SCC p. 104, para 6) If by committing ommitting fraud any employment is obtained, the same cannot be permitted to be countenanced by a Court of law as the employment secured by fraud renders it voidable at the option of the employer. 22. Apex Court in the matter of Sandeep Kumar (supra), pass passed the order considering the fact that the decision to terminate the servicess of appellant from the post of Registrar was nott preceded by an opportunity to show cause or any sort of disciplinary proceedings, whereas hereas in the present matter, show cause was duly ly issued. Therefore, the judgment delivered in the matter of Sandeep Kumar (supra), is not helpful to the petitioner. Similarly, judgment delivered in the matter of Rahul Tripathi (supra), by the Coordinate Bench ench is also not helpful to the petitioner as in that matter a contractual employee was terminated without issuance of any show cause notice. However, in the present matter a show cause notice was duly issued and opportunity to explain the allegation was granted. 23. The Supreme Court in the matter of Ritu Bhatia (supra), has hheld that, if the aspirant does not ot possess the requisite qualification, his appointment can be cancelled. However, in the present matter a show cause notice was duly issued and opportunity to explain the allegation was granted. 23. The Supreme Court in the matter of Ritu Bhatia (supra), has hheld that, if the aspirant does not ot possess the requisite qualification, his appointment can be cancelled. Similarly, in the matter of Satish Chandra handra Yadav (supra), the Supreme Court has has held that if the information supplied by the aspirant found incorrect or it is found that the aspirant has suppressed the material facts on verification, his appointment may be cancelled after issuance of show cause notice and giving an opportunity of explanation. 24. In the above conspectus, we find that the petitioner Dr. Ranjan Kumar did not possess requisite experience as required by advertisement dated 2.2.2022, at the time of applying for the post of Registrar of Dr. Hari Singh Gour University, Sagar Sagar and no illegality or irregularity committed by the Executing Committee of the University in passing the resolution of 1.12.2023 1.12.2023 to cancel the appointment of the petitioner and there was no requirement to hold regular disciplinary inquiry before cance cancelling the appointment on the ground of lack of requisite experience and supplying incorrect information. 25. Consequently,, the instant writ appeal is hereby allowed and the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 31.5.2024 in W.P. No.29611/2023 (Dr. Ranjan Kumar Pradhan v. Union of India and others) is hereby set aside. No order as to costs.