IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5761 of 2000 ASHARFI MEHTA Versus CHANCELLOR OF THE UNIVERSITIES ----------- For the Petitioner : M/s Sujeet Kumar, Manoj Kumar & Indu Bhushan Pandey, Advocates For Respondents 2 & 3 : Mr Vinay Kirti Singh, Advocate For Respondents 4 & 5 : Mr Uma Shanker Prasad, Sr. Advocate and Mr Kamla Kant Tiwary, Advocate ---- 5. 15.09.2008 Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for the University and the learned Counsel for the Governing Body of Jagdeo Memorial College, Respondent no. 4. The facts are not in controversy. In pursuance of a selection for appointment on the post of Principal by the University Service Commission, a recommendation dated 11.1.2000 came to be made in which name of the petitioner was at serial one of the panel while that of respondent no. 5 at serial two of the panel. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 4 states at paragraph 13 that respondent no. 5 had since then left the College and joined the Science College at Patna. Presumably for that reason he is represented through the Counsel representing the Governing Body itself. Contrary to the recommendation of the Commission the Governing Body proceeded to appoint respondent no. 5 on the post of Principal. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a Bench decision of this Court in 2003(1) PLJR 282 (Arbind Kumar Pandey Vs Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University, Kameshwar Nagar, Darbhanga & others) which specifically at paragraph 28 notices that the Governing Body has no discretion in the matter but shall be required to proceed and make appointment in terms of the merit panel. If it be bona fide of the opinion of inability to appoint it despite recommendation, it was for the Governing Body to seek review/judicial review of such recommendation. It in turn places reliance on another order of this Court on the issue in 2000 (4) PLJR 631 at paragraph 29 which this Court considers proper to quote in its entirety as follows:- “29. The recommendation made by the College Service Commission is statutory in nature and the Governing Body is to act according to the recommendation of the Commission. The law has cast obligation on the Governing Body to consider the recommendation within a fixed time and hence the Governing Body is obliged to act upon it, which unfortunately it has not done so. Reference in this connection can be made to a decision of this Court in the case of Dr. Sunil Kumar Jha vs. The State of Bihar and others [2000 (4) PLJR 631] and paragraph 8 thereof which is relevant for the purpose reads as follows: Ïn the aforesaid circumstances, the Governing Body had no option but to appoint the petitioner on the basis of the preference, as recommended by the Commission and had no discretion to choose the second nominee. There is nothing specific on record to suggest that the petitioner was found otherwise not suitable in comparison to the second nominee. The recommendation made by the College Service Commission is statutory in nature under sub-sections (9) and (10) of Section 2 of Bihar College Service Commission Act, 1976 and, therefore, it was binding upon the Governing Body to act according to the recommendation of the Commission. The decision taken by the Governing Body of the College appointing respondent no. 8 to the post of Lecturer in Sanskrit, therefore, must be held to be without jurisdiction. The counter affidavit on behalf of respondent no. 4 leaves this Court far from satisfied. It needs to be noted only that the recommendation in favour of the petitioner is dated 11.1.2000. The grounds sought to be urged in the counter affidavit is of the ineligibility of the petitioner to appointment allegedly for reasons of continued absence from the college services in February 2002 when an appropriate enquiry is said to have been held for the purpose but nonetheless no corrective actions were taken by the Governing Body with regard to the recommendation of the Commission when the Governing Body suo motu proceeded to act contrary to the merit panel. Now that respondent no. 5 is no more in the fray, this Court is satisfied that the petitioner in accordance with the merit panel is required to be appointed as Principal of the College in question, and the annulment of his appointment dated 25.2.2000 is only a formalities. The impugned order dated 11.3.2000 is accordingly quashed. The writ application stands allowed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)