'i5. It is therefore to be examined as to whether by cancelling of the impugned order, will an illegal order be revived. Before examining to this issue, it has to be examined if the order of appointment is an illegal order. It is noticed that in the WP.No.31379 of 2021, the stand of the respondents No.3 and 4 It was also stated that the Board of Governors have relaxed thc age and educational requlrements to enable the petitioners to apply pursuant to the Recruitment Notification. Thus, taking the above into consideration only, this Court had directed the respondent to permit the petitioners to apply and participate in the recruitment process if they come within the zone of consideration. It is also noticed that the petitioners participated and were successful in the mock test and were accordingly appointed. Therefore, this Court does not find any illegality in this whole process. It may have been irregular 1n not inviting the applications from the open market as well. The irregularity can be cured by the respondents by taking necessary corrective steps, but cannot terminate the servlces in this process, particularly when there was no role of the petitioners in this irregularity in appointments. The respondents have not cancelled the Notification, but have only cancelled the appointments of the writ petitioners herein. Therefore, the impugned order of the respondents clearly illegal and cannot be sustained. All the decisions relied upon by the learned standing counsel for the respondent University are where the initial order which is cancelled is illegal and not where the initial order is irregular. Therefore, they are distinguished on facts."
