1 LPA No.254 of 2009 ------ 1.THE GOVERNING BODY,A.B.S.COLLEGE, LALGANJ,VAISHALI THROUGH ITS SECRETARY 2.THE SECRETARY,A.B.S.COLLEGE,LALGANJ,VAISHALI ----- APPELLANTS Versus 1.AKHILESH KUMAR SINGH SON OF SHIV KUMAR SINGH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SAHPUR,SONPUR,P.S.SONPUR, DISTRICT SARAN AT PRESENT SHIV KUTIR, JAGAT NARAYAN ROAD,KADAMKUAN,PATNA-3 2.DR.MUKTESHWAR NARAYAN SINGH SON OF LATE YOGENDRA SINGH RESIDENT OF MOHALLA MANPUR,P.S.LALGANJ,DISTRICT VAISHALI 3.BABASAHEB BHIMRAO AMBEDKAR UNIVERSITY THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR, MUZAFFARPUR 4.THE REGISTRAR, BABASAHEB BHIMRAO AMBEDKAR UNIVERSITY, THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR, MUZAFFARPUR 5.THE BIHAR COLLEGE SERVICE COMMISSION THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN,BORING CANAL ROAD, PATNA -1 6.THE STATE OF BIHAR -------- RESPONDENTS with LPA No.257 of 2009 ---- DR.MUKTESHWAR NARAYAN SINGH SON OF LATE YOGENDRA SINGH RESIDENT OF MOHALLA MANPUR,P.S.LALGANJ,DISTRICT VAISHALI ------ APPELLANT Versus 1.AKHILESH KUMAR SINGH SON OF SHIV KUMAR SINGH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SAHPUR,SONPUR,P.S.SONPUR, DISTRICT SARAN AT PRESENT SHIV KUTIR, JAGAT NARAYAN ROAD,KADAMKUAN,PATNA-3 2.BABASAHEB DHIMRAO AMBEDKAR UNIVERSITY THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR, MUZAFFARPUR 3.THE REGISTRAR, BABASAHEB BHIMRAO AMBEDKAR UNIVERSITY THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR, MUZAFFARPUR 4.THE GOVERNING BODY,A.B.S.COLLEGE, LALGANJ,VAISHALI THROUGH ITS SECRETARY 5.THE SECRETARY, A.B.S. COLLEGE, LALGANJ,VAISHALI 6.THE BIHAR COLLEGE SERVICE COMMISSION THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN,BORING CANAL ROAD, PATNA -1 7.THE STATE OF BIHAR -------- RESPONDENTS ------ For the appellants : Mr.S.A.Narain, Sr.Advocate and Mr.Chakradhari Sharan Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr.Rakesh Kumar Singh For respondent nos. 3 & 4 : Mr.Ajay Bihari Sinha,Advocate For respondent no.1 : Mr.Surendra Prasad Singh,Advocate ------ 07/ 23.11.2009 Heard learned counsels for the parties. Letters Patent Appeal No. 254 of 2009 has been preferred against the judgment and 2 order dated 04.02.2009 passed in C.W.J.C.No. 9646 of 2000 whereby the writ petition preferred by respondent no.1, Akhilesh Kumar Singh, has been allowed by ordering for cancellation of appointment of respondent no.2, Dr.Mukteshwar Narayan Singh, on the post of Principal of the college i.e. A.B.S.College, Lalganj, Vaishali with a further direction to appoint the writ petitioner on that post on the ground that the writ petitioner was placed at serial no.1 and respondent no.2 was placed at serial no.2 of the recommendation made by the College Service Commission dated 10.12.1999 for appointment to the post of Principal in the college. On behalf of the appellants it has been submitted that relevant law is no longer res integra as would appear from the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rajendra Kishore Gokul.Vrs.The Chairman, Bihar College Service Commission and others reported in 2008(3) PLJR 181. According to that judgment, in making the appointment out of recommendations made by 3 the Commission, the Governing Body of the College is empowered to make selection out of the names recommended by the Commission and statutory embargo is only to the extent that in no case the Governing Body shall appoint a person who is not recommended by the Commission. It is further held in the judgment that only legal obligation upon the Governing Body in making the selection is of not acting arbitrarily or unfairly. The writ court has also taken a correct view of law but it has expressed its dissatisfaction with the reasons appearing from the resolution of the Governing Body. The writ court has held that the resolution in question was without any “justifiable” reason. Learned counsel for the appellants has taken us through the reasons which are part of the resolution of the Governing Body dated 11.08.2003 in respect of agenda item no.2, available as part of annexure-2. The Governing Body was aware of the writ petition pending in this Court filed by respondent no.1 and keeping that in mind along with 4 other relevant materials and statutory provisions came to the opinion that out of two names recommended by the Commission, respondent no.2, Dr.Mukteshwar Narayan Singh, was found more suitable for the post of Principal of the college because he was senior most teacher working in the college and as such he had performed the duties of Principal of the college from time to time and the Governing Body was satisfied with his devotion to teaching as well as administrative works. About respondent no.1, the Governing body expressed its views that he took interest only in non-teaching works. In our considered view, the writ petitioner has failed to discharge the onus placed upon him under law to show that the reasons given by the Governing body were either arbitrary or unfair. In that view of the matter, we are of the view that the writ court erred in recording a finding that the reasons were not justifiable. We find no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. As a result, this appeal is allowed but without costs. 5 The another appeal i.e. L.P.A.No. 257 of 2009 filed by Dr. Mukteshwar Narayan Singh need not be discussed separately in view of the finding and order recorded above. The same is also accordingly allowed and will also be governed by this very order. ( Shiva Kirti Singh, ACJ.) Tahir/- ( Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.)