IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC NO.27 OF 2000 LALIMA KUMARI, KUMARI, W/O SRI HEMANT KUMAR SINGH, R/O JURAN CHHAPRA, C/O SUDHIR PHARMACY, ROAD NO. 2, POLICE STATION TOWN, DISTRICT MUZAFFARPUR. …………………PETITIONER. VERSUS 1.BHIMRAO AMBEDKAR BIHAR UNIVERSITY, MUZAFFARPUR, THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR. 2.THE VICE CHANCELLOR, BHIMRAO AMBEDKAR BIHAR UNIVERSITY, MUZAFFARPUR. 3.THE REGISTRAR, BHIMRAO AMBEDKAR BIHAR UNIVERSITY, MUZAFFARPUR. 4.THE PRINCIPAL, MAHILA SHILPKALA BHAVAN COLLEGE, MUZAFFARPUR. 5.THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY/COMMISSIONER, HIGHER EDUCATION, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 6.THE DIRECTOR, HIGHER EDUCATION, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. ………………………RESPONDENTS. WITH CWJC NO.12683 OF 1999 SUJATA KUMARI, D/O SRI RAM SURESH PRASAD SINGH AND WIFE OF SRI VIJAY SHANKAR PANDEY, R/O VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE KUBAULI RAM, POLICE STATION TAJPUR, DISTRICT SAMASTIPUR. …………………PETITIONER. VERSUS 1.BHIMRAO AMBEDKAR BIHAR UNIVERSITY, MUZAFFARPUR, THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR. 2.THE VICE CHANCELLOR, BHIMRAO AMBEDKAR BIHAR UNIVERSITY, MUZAFFARPUR. 3.THE REGISTRAR, BHIMRAO AMBEDKAR BIHAR UNIVERSITY, MUZAFFARPUR. 4.THE PRINCIPAL, MAHILA SHILPKALA BHAVAN COLLEGE, MUZAFFARPUR. 5.THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY/COMMISSIONER, HIGHER EDUCATION, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 6.THE DIRECTOR, HIGHER EDUCATION, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. ………………………RESPONDENTS. WITH 2 CWJC NO.5018 OF 1999 1.AMARENDRA NATH, S/O LATE BASHISHTHA CHOUDHARY, R/O VILLAGE LOMA, P.S. JANDAHA, DISTRICT VAISHALI. 2.NARENDRA KUMAR, S/O LATE MOTI PANDEY, R/O MUHALLA AAM GOLA IN THE TOWN OF MUZAFFARPUR, P.S MUZAFFARPUR TOWN,DISTRICT MUZAFFARPUR. …………………PETITIONER. VERSUS 1.BHIMRAO AMBEDKAR BIHAR UNIVERSITY, MUZAFFARPUR, THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR. 2.THE VICE CHANCELLOR, BHIMRAO AMBEDKAR BIHAR UNIVERSITY, MUZAFFARPUR. 3.THE REGISTRAR, BHIMRAO AMBEDKAR BIHAR UNIVERSITY, MUZAFFARPUR. 4.THE PRINCIPAL, MAHILA SHILPKALA BHAVAN COLLEGE, MUZAFFARPUR. 5.THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY/COMMISSIONER, HIGHER EDUCATION, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 6.THE DIRECTOR, HIGHER EDUCATION, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. ………………………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 05/ 26.07.2011 Having heard counsel for the parties in all these three writ applications which are for the same identical relief of regularization of services of the petitioners, this Court would find that the College in question in which the petitioners claim to have been appointed on the post of Laboratory Incharge had already become a constituent Unit of Bhim Rao Ambedkar University, Muzaffarpur, Muzaffarpur in November 1982. Once the college had become a constituent Unit of 3 the University, the Principal of the College has no power to make appointment and therefore, when the respondents have already explained that there was a sham in the selection process by circulating the vacancy on the notice board and that the permission of the authorities of the University includes its Vice Chancellor was never obtained by the principal before making appointment of the petitioners this Court would not be impressed with the rest of the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners including the petitioners were appointed within the sanctioned post as per the staffing pattern. Regularization of service is only be possible if the initial entry has been made after following the mandate of article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and the prescribed statutory procedure. Here in the present case the power of appointment in the constituent college on class-III and class-IV post has always remained vested in the Vice chancellor under section 10(6) of the Bihar State University Act and as such 4 the very appointment of the petitioners by the principal was wholly without jurisdiction. In that view of the matter the alleged story of selection of the petitioners made by the Principal by circulating the vacancy on the notice board is in teeth of the statutory provisions and such illegal appointment at least would not confer any right to the petitioners of being regularized in service. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the matter relating to regularization of service of the petitioners is pending consideration before the committee constituted by the syndicate which has already submitted its report to the Vice chancellor of the University. That being so, the Vice chancellor of the University may take his own decision but then no writ of mandamus can be issued by this Court for regularizing their services in the light of observations directions given by the Apex court in the 5 case of The Secretary, State of Karnataka vs Uma Devi, reported in 2006(4) SCC 1. That being so, all these three writ applications are absolutely without any merit and are, accordingly, dismissed. Ranjan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)