IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3890 of 2004 KUMARI NILAM W/O THAKUR JWALA PRASAD, RESIDENT OF SHASTRINAGAR, p.s. TOWN THANA, DISTRICT SIWAN (AGED 45 YEARS). ………..PETITIONER. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2.THE BIHAR COLLEGE SERVICE COMMISSION, THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN, PATNA. 3.KAMESHWAR SINGH DARBHANGA SANSKRIT UNIVERSITY,KAMESHWAR NAGAR, DARBHANGA, THROUGH ITS VICE CHANCELLOR. 4.THE VICE CHANCELLOR, KAMESHWAR SINGH DARBHANGA SANSKRIT UNIVERSITY, KAMESHWAR NAGAR, DARBHANGA. ----------- 2. 08.11.2010 No one appears for the petitioner. 2. Counsel for Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University, is present. The following prayer of the petitioner:- “That this is an application for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent authorities to grant the pay scale of Rs.8,000/- to Rs.13,500/- with effect from the date similarly situated or juniors to her have been granted the said scale and further for grant of arrears of salary waiting from grant the pay scale with effect from the date similarly situated or juniors have so been 2 granted”. Could be allowed only if it could be shown by the petitioner that she was validly appointed in University service in terms of the provisions made in the Bihar State Universities Act. Admittedly, the petitioner’s appointment in an affiliated College was made without recommendation of College Service Commission which is a condition precedent for appointment and continuation in service in such affiliated college beyond the period of 6 months in terms of section 57(A) of the Bihar State Universities Act. 3. Heard counsel for the petitioner admits this fact that subsequently when the post of lecturer was advertised by the College Service Commission the petitioner being an applicant had appeared in interview, but she was not recommended by the Commission. In this respect her specific statement in Para No.18 of writ application at page 12 reads as follows :- “That it is the categorical assertion of the petitioner that in spite of the fact that she appeared in the interview after the Commission published advertisement for appointment to the first post of Lecturer in 3 the Department of Hindi but till the date no step have been taken by the Commission to recommend the name of the petitioner on the said post, though the petitioner, who was validly appointed by the Governing Body on the earlier occasion after advertisement of the said post and in view of such fact, there was no requirement to readvertise the said post once after the valid and legal selection process, the petitioner and others were appointed”. would by itself be complete answer to the illegal appointment/continuation of the petitioner in service, after she had completed the period of 6 months pursuant to the initial appointment made by the Governing Body. If, the petitioner, however, has a claim for payment of salary only against the Governing Body of such private college, she may still file a money suit in the civil court claiming her salary from the Governing Body of the College but a writ petition against the Governing Body of the College would not lie. That being so, the University cannot be directed to 4 made payment of salary to the petitioner who had admittedly been working in a private college merely having the affiliation of the University. The claim for payment of salary of the petitioner against the Government and the University could have been only sustained only if her appointment was made as per the provisions made in the Act but aforesaid statements itself shows that the appointment of the petitioner having been continued beyond a period of 6 months by the Governing Body of the college, either the university or the State in absence of her appointment based on recommendation of the College Service Commission is not required to recognize the same for any purpose much less for making payment of salary from the funds of the State. In the light of aforementioned findings and observations, this application is dismissed. Devendra/ ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)