IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12555 of 2000 5 27.11.2008 Dr Ramchandra Singh Yadav, Son of Sri Barhu Singh Yadav, the Acting Principal of Braj Lal Prasad College, Masaurhhi, P.S. Dhanarua, District Patna WITH CWJC No.12586 of 2000 Dr Ram Naresh Prasad son of Shri Manki Singh, resident of village Makhdumpur Ahara, P.O.Kajisarai, P.S. Kako, District Jahanabad at present Incharge Principal, Brajlal Prasad Mahavidyalaya, Masaurhi, District Patna PETITIONERS VERSUS 1.The Bihar College Service Commission, Vishnu Bhawan, Boring Canal Road, Patna through its Secretary 2. The Magadh University, Bodh Gaya through its Registrar, District Gaya 3. The Vice Chancellor, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya, District Gaya 4. The Registrar, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya, District Gaya 5. The Governing Body of Braj Lal Pd. College, Masaurhi throiugh its Secretary at Masaurhi, P.S. and P.O. Masaurhi, District Patna RESPONDENTS. --------- Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the University as well as counsel appearing for the Governing Body of Braj Lal Prasad College, Masaurhi. In both the writ petitions the petitioners have claimed that since the Bihar College Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as „the Commission) has recommended their names through letter dated 6.12.1999 for appointment on the post of Principal of Braj Lal Prasad College, Masaurhi, a 2 affiliated college of the Magadh University, hence a Writ be issued for implementing the recommendation dated 6.12.1999 so that either of the petitioners may be selected and appointed on the vacant post of Principal of the College. The recommendation dated 6.12.1999 is not in dispute. According to that, petitioner, Ramchandra Singh Yadav is the first nominee of the Commission and the other petitioner, Ram Naresh Prasad is the second nominee as per their respective merits found by the Commission. The writ petitions were filed when the period of one year for which the recommendation remains valid, was to expire within few days. The issue is whether the Governing Body of the affiliated college has a legal duty to fill up the post of Principal of the college from any of the two persons recommended by the Commission or right of consideration ceases after the lapse of one year. For this purpose it is useful to note the legal provision under the Bihar College Service Commission Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟). Section 2 (9) provides that the Commission shall recommend for appointment to every post of teacher names of two persons arranged in order of preference. It further provides that the recommendation shall be valid for one year from the date of the recommendation of the Commission. Sub-section (10) 3 provides that in making such appointment the Governing Body of the college, shall within three months from the date of the receipt of the recommendation under sub-section (9), make its selection out of the names recommended by the Commission, and in no case shall Governing Body appoint a person who is not recommended by the Commission. On a careful consideration of aforesaid legal provisions, this Court is of the considered view that on receipt of recommendation from the Commission the Governing Body has the option of making such appointment by selecting one of the recommended persons within three months. The recommendation is valid for only one year and, therefore, if no selection is made within that time, the recommendation under the force of law, has to lapse. The bar on the Governing Body is to the effect that it cannot appoint a person who is not recommended by the Commission. In the present case, neither within three months nor till the expiry of one year time the Governing Body has selected any of the two persons recommended by the Commission. Hence, both recommended persons have filed these writ petitions. In law, this Court finds that non- action on the part of Governing Body will have the effect of debarring Governing Body from appointing any person who is not 4 recommended and the recommendation shall lapse after one year. Besides such effect, there is no right created in any of the recommendees. This Court is aware of some judgments wherein it has been held that rules of fairness require that if the Governing Body opts for the person lower in the merit list then it shall be required to indicate reasons why the number one recommendee was not selected. In the instant case, the Governing Body has not made any selection and hence, the only issue is whether any of the petitioners have any legal right of compelling the Governing Body to consider their cases now when several years have lapsed. In my view, the answer has to be negative. On facts, it is found from the materials in the counter affidavit that in an unusual meeting of all teachers and non-teaching employees “not the Governing Body or Managing Committee”, on 5.10.2001 it was considered that both the petitioners have created problem for the institution and hence, a third persons should be appointed as incharge Principal. In a meeting of the Managing Committee held on 14.12.2001 by resolution no.1, the aforesaid resolution no.5 was taken note of and in that view of the matter, one Sadhu Saran Singh was appointed as incharge Principal unanimously. 5 There may be substance in the submission that there has been no clear and proper consideration of the recommendation of the Commission by Governing Body / Managing Committee but in view of finding of law, given above, when the petitioners have no legal right that their cases must be considered and one of them may be selected, this Court finds no merit in these writ petitions. Both the writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) sk