CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.2516 OF 1998 --- In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. --- LAL MOHAR SINGH s/o ofSri Palakdhari singh, resident of village Balihari, Police Station- Charookhri, P.S. Bhagalpur. ---------------Petitioner Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.The Vice Chancellor of Veer Kunwar Singh University, Bhojpur at Arrah. 3.The Registrar, Veer Kunwar Singh University, Bhojpur at Arrah. 4.The Secretary, Bihar College service Commission, Bailey Road, Patna. 5. The Governing Body of sumitra Mahila College, Dumraon, P.S Dumraon District- Bhojpur at Arrah Through Secretary of the College. 6. Usha Singh,/ Ssumitra Mahila College, Dumraon. 7. The Secretary of College ( Jag Narain singh Son o9f Sri Raghubir Singh), Dumitra Mahila College, Dumraon Distt. Buxar. 8. Smt.Meera Kumari, Lecturer, Sumitra Mahila College, Dumraon. P.S. Dumraon Distt- Buxar. ---------------------Respondents ----------- For the University : Mr. A.B. Sinha & Mr. Upendra Kr. Singh For the State : Mr. Shashi Bhushan Prasad, S.C.-16 P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH Navaniti Prasad Singh,J In spite of repeated calls, non appears for the petitioner. Respondent- University is present. State is also present. Perused the pleadings. It appears that under Veer Kunwar Singh University,Sumitra Mahila College, Dumraon is an affiliated college. As per the provisions of the Bihar State Universities 2 Act ,1976, all appointments of teaching staff has to be made as per recommendation of the Bihar College Service Commission. It appears that there were two sanctioned posts for lecturer in History in the said College. Accordingly the Bihar Public Service Commission first issued advertisement being Advertisement No. 416B/94, for one post of History teacher. Immediately, thereafter, it issued Advertisement No. 1250 of 1994 for both the teachers without superseding the earlier advertisement. It is not in dispute that respondent no 8 applied for the solitary post that was advertised in the first advertisement and the petitioner applied for two posts as advertised in the second advertisement. The College Service Commission made two recommendations for the first post and two recommendations for the second post, as is evident from Annexure 2 to the writ petition. For the first post, it recommended one Mithlesh Kumar Singh and Smt Meera Kumari (Respondent No.8 ). For the second post, it recommended the petitioner as serial no1 and one Raj Kumar as serial No 2 .It appears that the Governing Body of the College considered the recommendation and appointed Mithlesh Kumar Singh as against the first post and respondent no.8, Smt Meera Kumari on the second post ignoring the claim of the petitioner. This has brought the petitioner to this Court. A Counter Affidavit has been filed by the 3 University stating that in all two sanctioned posts were advertised and four recommendations having been received. Governing Body choose two names therefrom giving preference to respondent no 8 being lady as it was a Women’s College. Having perused the pleadings, in my view, no exception can be taken to the selection, as made by the Governing Body. It may be noted that appointment in the College of teaching staff has to be made on recommendation of the Bihar College Service Commission but that does not mean that seriatim of recommendation has to be adhered to .It is for the Governing Body to choose two persons recommended . Here for two sanctioned posts, four names were recommended . The Governing Body choose the first two names. There is apparently no illegality.It has justified the selection of respondent no 8 on the ground of being lady and that too, backward and was working from before in the College itself. Preference given is neither arbitrary nor discriminatory. In that view of the matter, I find no merit in this application and this application is dismissed. Patna High Court, 4th November, 2010, Namita/NAFR. ( Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)