IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.290 of 2003 SUSHIL KUMAR DWIVEDI . Versus KAMESHWAR SINGH DARBHANGA SANS . ----------- 08. 05.05.2010 Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the respondent University and learned counsel for private respondent No. 5. The original cause of action in the writ petition was based on the refusal of the University dated 22.09.2001 to approve the appointment of the petitioner dated 04.06.2000 on the post of Principal by the governing body of the Seth Ram Niranjan Das Murarka Sanskrit College, Patna City(hereinafter called the College) after recommendation of the erstwhile Bihar College Service Commission(hereinafter called the Commission) in anticipation of the approval of the University. We do not consider it necessary to take note of the fact in the appeal, except to the extent necessary. The entire claim of the appellant for appointment on the post of Principal stems from his claim to appointment on the post of Lecturer on 06.03.1984 in the college. Thus the claim that he fulfilled the eligibility criteria having worked as lecturer for over twelve years under Advertisement 195/98. The writ Court noticed that his claimed 2 appointment was made by the governing body of the College of which the Secretary was non-else than his father. The writ petition originally did not stake any claim of appointment as Lecturer on 06.03.1984 to urge that he fulfilled the criteria of twelve years on the post of lecturer. This transpired in the form of a rejoinder affidavit and an amendment application when the Commission sought to withdraw the concurrence granted to his appointment in 1998 for non fulfillment of the eligibility criteria in 2001. The writ Court then arrived at a factual finding that there was nothing on record to suggest his appointment as claimed on 06.03.1984 and even thereafter till 03.07.1998 which also came to be withdrawn. The withdrawal remained unchallenged. The writ Court, therefore held that the petitioner had not come to the Court with clean hands in belatedly attempting to make out a case of appointment on 06.03.1984. We find no reason to arrive at any different conclusion in absence of any fresh material having been placed before us from the record of any claim for appointment on 06.03.1984. In any event of the matter, the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Principal was made by the governing body of the college in anticipation of the approval of the University. If the approval of the University was not forthcoming for cogent reasons, we find no reason to hold 3 that any right accrued to the petitioner pursuant to such conditional appointment made by the college when the condition came not to be fulfilled. The appeal is dismissed. Shageer (Navin Sinha, J) (Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.)