IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13867 of 2003 SARVANAND SHARMA Bhardwaj, son of late Anant Lal Sharma, resident of village Mahadeopur, P.S. Amarpur, District Banka. Versus 1. THE CHANCELLOR OF UNIVERSITIES of Bihar, Raj Bhawan, Patna. 2. The College Service Commission, through its Secretary, Boring Canal Road, Patna. 3. Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University, Darbhanga, through its Registrar. 4. Vice Chancellor, Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University, Darbhanga. 5. The Secretary, Governing Body, Shri Ram Sanskrit College, Sarouti, Rampur Chauram, Arwal, District Arwal. 6. The Princip0al, Shri Ram Sanskrit College, Saraouti, Rampur Chouram, Arwal, District Arwal. 7. Shri Sudarshan Sriniwas Sandilya, son of name not known to the petitioner, Lecturer in the Department of Vyakarna, Shri Ram Sanskrit College, Sarouti, Rampur Chouram, Arwal, District Arwal. ----------- 4 25.10.2010 Having heard Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Rama Shankar Pradhan, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 5 to 7 and Mr. Harendra Prasad Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University as with regard to the following relief:- “That this is an application for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the resolution dated 7.6.2003, passed by the Governing Body of the Shri Ram Sanskrit College, Saraouti, Arwal, District Arwal (hereinafter referred to as „the College‟), whereby the name of the petitioner as recommended by the College Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as „the Commission‟) as first name against the first post has been changed and the private respondent no.7 has been appointed against the first post in the Department of Vyakarna ignoring the recommendation of the Commission and further for issuance of a consequential writ in the nature of mandamus directing and commanding the Kameshwar Sisngh Darbhanga Sanskrit University (hereinafter referred to as „the University) not to give effect to the said resolution of the Governing Body dated 7.6.2003 2 and further a direction be issued to the Governing Body of the said College to act in accordance with the recommendation made by the Commission, which is statutory and biding in nature and/or for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, for which the petitioner may be found legally entitled to in the facts and circumstances stated hereinafter.” this Court is of the opinion that even when the impugned decision of the Governing Body of a private Sanskrit College dated 7.6.2003, appointing the Respondent no. 7 on the first post of Lecturer in Vyakaran and the petitioner against the second post of lecturer in Vyakaran would not be amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inasmuch as, the Governing Body of Sri Ram Sanskrit College, hereinafter referred to as the College is not a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution but as such a decision of the Governing Body of the College in effect, seeks to nullify the recommendation in favour of the petitioner made by the College Service Commission against the first post of Lecturer in the College by appointing him on the second post and Respondent no. 7 on first post contrary to the recommendation of College Service Commission this much must be clarified by this Court while directing the University that it must take a decision strictly in accordance with law while passing orders on the proposal submitted by the Governing Body of the College seeking approval of appointment of Respondent no. 7 against the first post of lecturer and that of the petitioner on the second post of lecturer in the department of Vyakaran in the College. 3 The Statutes of Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University as with regard to appointment of teachers in affiliated College specifically provides for an approval of the University, inasmuch as, most of the affiliated Colleges of the Sanskrit University are the financially aided College by the State Government and therefore the special features and the status of the Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University in a way has also a limited control over the appointment made by the Governing Body in such affiliated College. Thus, when respondent nos. 5 and 6, the Governing Body and the Principal of the college in their counter affidavit while seeking to justify the decision appointing Respondent no. 7 against first post of lecturer is apparent had taken certain plea as with regard to superior claim of respondent no.7 for over reaching the recommendation of the Commission in favour of the petitioner, the University in all fairness ought to have not remained a mute spectator. It has also been stated in the counter affidavit filed by respondent nos. 5 and 6 that the Governing Body having appointed respondent no.7 on the first post of lecturer in Vyakaran and the petitioner against second post had submitted proposal for approval of the University vide letter dated 12.6.2003, a decision on the same had to be taken. Mr. Harendra Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the University however explains that as the petitioner by this time had already filed two writ applications one on 16.7.2003 and the 4 present one on 12.12.2003 and the matter had remained sub-judice before this Court, the University could not take a decision only on account of pendency of both the cases. That being so, this Court would direct the Registrar of Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University to ensure that a final decision on the resolution of the Governing Body dated 7.6.2003 as contained in Annexure-A and its being forwarded by letter of the Governing Body of the College dated 12.6.2003 should be taken by the competent authority of the University strictly in accordance with law within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. In according such approval the University will be guided by the statutory norms and the recommendation of the Commission, inasmuch as, normally the Governing Body cannot vary/rescind or alter the specific recommendation made by the College Service Commission. A decision by the University in this regard must be taken within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of this order and should also be backed by reasons so that both of the petitioner and respondent no.7 have a complete satisfaction of consideration of their case in accordance with law. With the aforesaid observations and directions this writ application is disposed of. Abhay Kumar ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)