IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4955 of 2002 DR.KAMLESH JHA, S/O LATE GANESH JHA, R/O VILLAGE-TARAUNI, P.S.-BAHERA, DISTRICT- MADHUBANI. ………………PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE VICE-CHANCELLOR, KAMESHWAR SINGH DARBHANGA SANSKRIT UNIVERSITY, DARBHANGA. 2. THE REGISTRAR, KAMESHWAR SINGH DARBHANGA SANSKRIT UNIVERSITY, DARBHANGA. 3. THE SECRETARY, GOVERNING BODY, JUTHA LAL SANSKRIT COLLEGE, MAJHAULIA, WEST CHAMPARAN. 4. THE PRINCIPAL, JUTHA LAL SANSKRIT COLLEGE, MAJHAULIA, WEST CHAMPARAN. ………………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 4 25.02.2010 The issue raised in this writ application is no more res integra. The petitioner has challenged the resolution of the Governing Body of the college appointing the person whose name appeared at serial no. 2 on the recommendation of the College Service Commission. The College being an affiliated College, the College Service Commission had the powers to hold process for selection and recommend the names for appointment on the sanctioned vacant posts of Lecturer in the affiliated College. In this case the Commission did that and recommended two names in which the name of the petitioner was at serial no. 1. Still without assigning any reason, the Governing Body resolved to appoint the incumbent whose name was at serial no. 2. Two Division 2 Benches of this Court have clarified the legal position in this respect and have laid down as to under what circumstances the Governing Body can ignore the first recommendee and appoint the second. In the case of Shri Chandra Bhushan Prasad Singh Vs. the Bihar University reported in 1979 BBCJ 384, the Division Bench laid down the law in the following terms:- Essentially, therefore, the appointments have to be made in the order of merit as recommended by the Commission. If however the order of merit, as recommended by the Commission, is unacceptable to the Syndicate or the Governing Body of a College, it has to record the reasons for not accepting the recommendation as made by the Commission and further, the Syndicate or the Governing Body has to submit the case to the Chancellor for final orders. The observations of the Division Bench in the case of Chandra Bhushan Prasad Singh (supra) have been noticed with approval by another Division Bench in the case of Manjula Kumari Vs. Dr. Sunil Kumar Jha & Ors. reported in 2004 (4) PLJR 457. Learned counsel for the University appears and does not dispute the legal position 3 as settled by the two Division Benches of this Court. He submits that he has filed counter affidavit to show that the University has directed the Governing Body of the College to act in accordance with law which they have not done so far. It may be pointed out that inspite of issue and service of notice on the Secretary of the Governing Body twice, no one has appeared on his behalf to assist this Court. The law, having been settled by two Division Benches of this Court, does not require much elaboration. The resolution of the Governing Body, contained in item no. 4 of Annexure-12, is therefore, quashed. The Governing Body is directed to act in accordance with law as laid down by the two Division Benches of this Court on the recommendation of the College Service Commission, preferably with a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. This writ application is allowed with the above observations and directions. Arvind/ (J. N. Singh, J.)