Order : (DINESH MEHTA, J.) 1. The petitioners involved in the present batch of writ petitions have approached this Court challenging the respective notices issued to them by the concerned District Education Officer seeking to cancel their appointments on various allegations including that there are discrepancies in the degrees which they had relied upon for the purpose of seeking appointment and that there were difference in the particulars which were provided in the online application forms if compared with the degrees which they produced at the time of document verification. The notices issued to the petitioners also contain various allegations which include discrepancies either in the roll numbers, year of passing, date of declaration of result or in name of the universities, etc. 2. Mr. Kotwani, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that on being found meritorious, all the petitioners were called for document verification and the recruiting agency, namely, Rajasthan Staff Selection Board (hereinafter referred to as ‘RSSB or Board’) conducted a thorough document verification and recommended their names to the State which in turn gave them appointments. 3. While arguing that since document verification had been conducted and the State had got verification of their degrees from the concerned universities, learned counsel argued that the respondents are going to terminate services of the petitioners or cancel their appointments on trivial technical issues, which have surfaced later on. 4. He submitted that each of the petitioners have filed their reply/response in furtherance to the notice issued to them, but they have least hope of getting due consideration by the respondents, as they are pre-determined to cancel petitioners’ appointments as has been done in various other cases. 5. Mr. Kotwani invited Court’s attention towards the appointment orders issued to each of the petitioners and highlighted that the respondents have clearly mentioned that the appointments were being offered on the basis of the genuine report given by the concerned Universities. 6. On 27.01.2025, upon hearing rival counsel, this Court had found a prima -facie case in petitioners’ favour and directed the respondents not to take any decision prejudicial to petitioners’ right. 7. During the pendency of the proceedings, the Board was directed to file an affidavit stating whether the document verification was conducted by the Board and if so, the manner and the extent it was carried out. 8. 7. During the pendency of the proceedings, the Board was directed to file an affidavit stating whether the document verification was conducted by the Board and if so, the manner and the extent it was carried out. 8. In response to Court’s direction, an additional affidavit has been submitted by the Secretary of the Board, inter alia, accepting the fact that the document verification was done by the Board, however, with a caveat that the committee which conducted document verification comprised of three members nominated by the Education Department. 9. Mr. Patel, learned counsel for the Board invited Court’s attention towards the stipulation made in the communication dated 31.05.2023 sent along with the list of recommendees and underscored that the State was cautioned to verify the genuineness of the degrees issued by various Universities such as (I) Singhania University, Jhunjhunu; (ii) OPJS University, Churu; (iii) Sunrise University, Alwar, etc. 10. Learned counsel for the Board submitted that the State had ensured itself about genuineness of the degrees by sending a letter to such universities, but later on it was revealed that the universities from which the petitioners claimed to have obtained degrees had connived with the petitioners and fraudulently granted degrees to the petitioners. 11. He submitted that large number of candidates have filled in their application forms asserting that they have obtained their B.P.Ed. Degrees from such universities whereas they did not have that much intake capacity. He contended that 2078 candidates claimed to have obtained their B.P.Ed. Degrees from JS University, Shikohabad, Uttar Pradesh, whereas said JS University has the maximum limit of 480 students (120 students per year). Similarly in the case of students from OPJS University, Churu, whose intake capacity is also about 500 students (120 student per year), whereas 2640 candidates have submitted their online forms claiming or relying degrees from such university. 12. Mr. Mehta, learned counsel for the respondent – State submitted that on complaints being received, Special Operations Group (SOG) of the Police Department of the State of Rajasthan conducted a thread-bare inquiry and found serious infirmities and irregularities. Based on its report, notices were issued to the petitioners and several other candidates, resulting in the cancellation of some of the appointments. 13. Based on its report, notices were issued to the petitioners and several other candidates, resulting in the cancellation of some of the appointments. 13. Upon hearing learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State and after considering the rival contentions, this Court is of the view that simply because of the discrepancies as noticed or alleged by the respondents. Petitioners’ appointments cannot be canceled. 14. The petitioners may have genuine reasons or valid explanation for the discrepancies which the Directorate has pointed out. But, the factual inquiry as prayed by the petitioners cannot be done by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. 15. With the consent of the parties, this Court deems it appropriate to constitute a three-Member Committee to examine the veracity of the allegations leveled against the petitioners vis-a- vis their defense and also to take into account any other additional/incidental issue that crops up. 16. Such Committee will be headed by the Secretary of the Board and would comprise of one officer of Joint Director level of the Education Department to be nominated by Principal Secretary of the Education Department and an officer of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police to be nominated by Director General of the Special Operations Group. 17. The Members be nominated by Principal Secretary of the Education Department and Director General of the Special Operations Group within a period of seven days from today. 18. The Committee so constituted shall accord opportunity of personal hearing to all the petitioners by intimating the date, time and place of appearance within a period of 15 days from today. 19. Each of the petitioners shall file a fresh reply while giving reference to the notice issued to them and dealing with the concern expressed in the notice issued to them. 20. Apart from the reply, it shall be required of each of the petitioners to produce:- (i) Date of admission in the course and duration of course. (ii) Whether the course undertaken by the petitioners was correspondence course or was a regular course? (iii) If the course was regular course, then whether the application for leave was applied/obtained, in case the incumbent was in Government service. (iv) Proof of payment of fee for the course for all the semesters including date and mode of payment. (v) Dates when the petitioners have attended the classes. (iii) If the course was regular course, then whether the application for leave was applied/obtained, in case the incumbent was in Government service. (iv) Proof of payment of fee for the course for all the semesters including date and mode of payment. (v) Dates when the petitioners have attended the classes. (vi) The schedule of the examination conducted, if any. (vii) Where did the petitioners take exams (place)? (viii) How did they receive the mark-sheets – whether by post or by hand? 21. On receipt of the reply and upon hearing each of the candidates, the Committee shall take a considered separate decision qua each of the candidates. The decision taken qua each of the candidates individually or cumulatively shall be uploaded on the website of the Board. 22. The report of the Committee shall be forwarded to the Directorate and competent authority shall be free to take appropriate action on the basis of the report of the Committee. 23. Until the report is submitted by the Committee to the Directorate, no action prejudicial to petitioners’ interest shall be taken. 24. Needless to observe that in case the decision of the Committee is prejudicial to petitioners’ right and/or any decision in furtherance thereof is taken by the respondents, petitioners’ right to take legal recourse shall remain reserved. 25. The writ petitions so also stay applications stand disposed of, accordingly.