Judgment U.N.Sinha, J. 1. Both these applications have been filed by the same person, named Shri Jagdish Pandey, undo: Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and they have been heard together. This Judgment will govern both of them. Chronologically speaking, the events covered by Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 498 of 1963 happened earlier, and, therefore, I will consider that case first. Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 498 of 1963. 2. The petitioner has filed tills application as the Principal of Pandaul College in Madhubani, in the district of Darbhanga. The College is affiliated to the University of Bihar. The prayer in this application is to the effect that the orders of the Chancellor of the University passed under Sec. 4 of Bihar Act XIII of 1962 and communicated to the petitioner on the 18th August, 1962 and 18th February, 1963, may be quashed. It is also prayed that Sec. 4 of the Act, mentioned above, may be struck down as ultra vires of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The order of the Chancellor communicated on the 18th August, 1962 has been mentioned in Annexure F of the application, and the second order communicated on the 18th February, 1963, has been mentioned in Annexure I of the application. These two annexures run as follows: Annexure F. Governors Secretariat, Bihar No. USC (BU)-24/62-3690 Bihar Governors Camp Ranchi, the 29th Sravana 1884 (S), 18th August, 1962. From Shri C.S. Bhatnagar, Secretary to the Governor, Bihar. To The Vice-Chancellor, Bihar University, Muzaffarpur. Sir, I am directed to say that on the recommendation of the University Service Commission communicated in their letter No. 687 USC dated the 19th July, 1962, the Chancel has been pleased to approve, under Section 4 of the Bihar State Universities (Amendment) Act, 1962 the appointments of Sarvashri Jagdish Pandey, Janak Kishore Lal DAS, Dhirendra Narayan Kumar, Srimohan Jha and Suraj Narayan Chaudhary as teachers of the Pandaul College, Pandual till the 30th November, 1962 or till the candidates recommended by the Commission join these posts whichever is earlier. For this purpose the Secretary of the college should send a requisition to the Commission for advertising these posts at an early date. The Secretary of the college is being informed accordingly. Yours faithfully, Sd. C.S. Bhatnagar Secretary to the Governor, Bihar. For this purpose the Secretary of the college should send a requisition to the Commission for advertising these posts at an early date. The Secretary of the college is being informed accordingly. Yours faithfully, Sd. C.S. Bhatnagar Secretary to the Governor, Bihar. Memo No. U. S. C. (BU) 24/62-3691-GS (I) Ranchi, the 17th Sravan 1884 (S) 18th August, 1962. The Secretary, University Service Commission Gandhi Maidan Road (West), Patna for information with reference to his letter No. 687 USC dated the 19th July, 62. Pandaul. The Secretary, Pandaul College, Pandaul for information and necessary action. Sd. Illegible. Secretary to the Governor, Bihar." Annexure I. "Governors Secretariat Bihar Raj Bhawan Patna, the 29th March 1884(S) 18th February, 1963. No. USC (BU)-24/62-3690. From Shri C.S. Bhatnagar, Secretary to the Governor, Bihar. To The Secretary to the Governing Body, Pandaul College, Pandaul (Darbhanga) Sir, In partial modification of the orders conveyed in this office letter No. USC (BU)-24/62-3690, dated the 18th August, 1962, I am directed to inform you that the Chancellor has been pleased to approve, under Section 4 of the Bihar State Universities (Amendment) Act, 1962, the appointments of Sarvashri J.K. Lal Das (English), D.N. Kumar (English), Sri Mohan Jha (Philosophy), S.N. Chaudhary (Philosophy), Sureshwar Jha (Political Science), Durganand Jha (Hindi), Shiva Shanker Jha (Maithili), Jaibir Misra (Economics) and Akhtarul Hussain (Urdu) as lecturers of the Pandaul College made by the Governing Body of the College between the 27th November, 1961 and 28th February, 1962. As regards the appointment of Shri Jagdish Pandey, Principal of the College, the Governing Body may give him a year or two to appear at the examination to enable him obtain a second class. Otherwise his services may be terminated. The case of the Sarvashri S.N. Saraswati and Ramchandra Prasad Deva are under consideration and Chancellors decision in these cases will be conveyed to you shortly. Yours faithfully, Sd/-Illegible Secretary to the Governor Bihar." The facts leading up to this application are these: It is stated that Shri Jagdish Pandey was appointed on the 22nd January, 1962, as Principal of the College, by the Governing Body, after due advertisement and regular interview. Before Shri Pandey was appointed as Principal, he had worked as Head of the Department of Commerce and lecturer in Economics at R. K. College, Madhubani, since July, 1948. Before Shri Pandey was appointed as Principal, he had worked as Head of the Department of Commerce and lecturer in Economics at R. K. College, Madhubani, since July, 1948. His services were confirmed by the Governing Body of the College at a meeting held on the 23rd September, 1951. His appointment as Principal of Pandaul College was approved by the University of Bihar on the 24th January, 1962. It is further alleged in the application that the appointment of the petitioner was challenged in this Court in Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 84 of 1962, decided on the 11th May, 1962. It was held by this Court that there was nothing wrong in the decision of the Governing Body of the College in appointing the petitioner as Principal. Thereafter, Act XIII of 1962 was enacted by the Legislature and the Act was published in the Bihar Gazette on the 21st April, 1962. Sec. 4 of the Act runs as follows:-- "4. Certain appointments, etc., of teachers of non-Government affiliated colleges to be subject to Chancellors orders.--Notwithstanding anything contained in the said Act or the Magadh University Act, 1961 (Bihar Act IV of 1962) or the statutes made thereunder, or the Bihar State Universities (University of Bihar, Bhagalpur and Ranchi) Ordinance, 1962 (Bihar Ordinance No. I of 1962) every appointment, dismissal, removal, termination of service or reduction in rank of any teacher of a college, not belonging to the State Government, affiliated o the University established under the said Act or the Magadh University Act, 1961 (Bihar Act IV of 1962), made on or after the twenty-seventh day of November, 1961 and before the first day of March, 1962, shall be subject to such orders as the Chancellor of the University may, on the recommendation of the University Service Commission established under Sec. 48A of the said Act, pass with respect thereto." It is then stuted that in pursuance of this section, the University Service Commission asked the Governing Body of the College to furnish necessary information regarding the appointment of teachers made on or after the 27th November, J.961 and before the first day of March, 1962. Necessary informations were sent by the Secretary of the College by his communication dated the 28th May, 1902. Necessary informations were sent by the Secretary of the College by his communication dated the 28th May, 1902. Ultimately, it is stated, the Chancellor of the University approved the services of the petitioner on the recommendation of the University Service Commission till the 00th November, 1962. This is the order which was communicated to the petitioner on the 18th August, 1962 (Annexure F). It is then stated that on receipt of this order, the Governing Body of the College represented to the Chancellor through the Secretary, University Service Commission, that the case of the petitioner was not covered by Sec. 4 of the abovementioned Act. It was suggested that the case of Shri Jagdish Pandey may be considered judiciously and sympathetically and his appointment be approved. This communication has been incorporated in Annexure G. According to the petitioner, the University Service Commission, therefore, issued a belated show cause notice to the petitioner to appear personally on the 5th December, 1962 and to show cause as (sic) why "the Commission should not recommend to the Chancellor that there is no adequate justification or reason for the Chancellor to modify the orders already passed by him in the matter of the appointment of Shri Jagdish Pandey and others." This notice to the petitioner has been incorporated In Annexure H. It is stated that the petitioner thereafter showed cause on the aforesaid crate and, ultimately, the Secretary to the Governor sent the second impugned communication dated the 18tb February, 1963 (Annexure I). It is further stated that on the 19th February, 1963, the petitioner made a personal representation before the Chancellor with respect to the impugned order, but he has not received information as to what happened to his representation. Under these circumstances, this application1 has been filed, challenging the orders of the Chancellor mentioned in Annexures F and I as void, illegal and as having been passed without jurisdiction. As Indicated earlier, Sec. 4 of Act XIII of 1962 is also challenged as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as it denies the petitioner equal protection of law. It is stated in the application that the impugned orders of the Chancellor passed without giving him a right of hearing, offend the principles of natural justice. As Indicated earlier, Sec. 4 of Act XIII of 1962 is also challenged as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as it denies the petitioner equal protection of law. It is stated in the application that the impugned orders of the Chancellor passed without giving him a right of hearing, offend the principles of natural justice. It is further stated that the petitioner had not been afforded any opportunity to show cause, nor was he heard, nor was he asked to submit any explanation before the orders affecting his services had been passed. 3. In reply to the application filed by Shri Jagdish Pandey, the University Service Commission has filed a petition, stating substantially as follows; It is mentioned that Shri Pandey had obtained only a third class in his M. A. examination and under Article 1(1) of the Bihar University Statutes, Chapter XVI, the minimum qualification of a Principal is: "Second Class Masters Degree, and at least 10 years teaching experience in a college of which at least 7 years must be in a degree college or 5 years experience as a Principal of an Intermediate college." As Shri Pandey had not fulfilled the aforesaid statutory qualification, the Commission had recommended to the Chancellor on the 19th July, 1962 that his appointment may be disapproved and that pending filling of the post by a proper person, he may be allowed to continue as Principal till the 30th November, 1962, The Chancellor had accepted this recommendation and had passed orders accordingly. Thereafter, on the representation made by the Governing Body of the College requesting the Commission to reconsider the case of Shri Pandey, the latter had been asked to show cause on the 5th December, 1962, as indicated earlier. In response to this notice, Shri Pandey showed cause by a written petition dated the 5th December, 1962, a copy of which has been incorporated as Annexure B o this counter-affidavit. Shri Pandey had also been heard personally on the 5th December, 1962, and he had also filed a supplementary show cause petition on the 4th January, 1963. (This date has been mistakenly mentioned as 21st January, 1963 in the Counter-affidavit.) A copy of this petition has been incorporated as Annexure C to the counter-affidavit. Shri Pandey had also been heard personally on the 5th December, 1962, and he had also filed a supplementary show cause petition on the 4th January, 1963. (This date has been mistakenly mentioned as 21st January, 1963 in the Counter-affidavit.) A copy of this petition has been incorporated as Annexure C to the counter-affidavit. Thereafter, the Commission had reconsidered the matter and had recommended to the Chancellor that the Commission was unable to modify its previous recommendation as Shri Pandey did not possess the necessary statutory qualification. The Chancellor had, however, passed his own order, which was communicated on the 18th February, 1963. Another counter-affidavit has been filed, said to be on behalf of the Chancellor of the University of Bihar. It may be mentioned at this stage that we have been informed that the Chancellor of the University of Bihar has not formally appeared in this Court). This counter-affidavit filed in this case is a short one, adopting a similar counter-affidavit filed in Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 493 of 1963. So far as this case is concerned, nothing new turns upon this counter-affidavit. 4. A supplementary affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the University Service Commission, stating that the Commission took into consideration the provisions of Statutes of the University in making recommendation under Section 4 of Bihar Act XIII of 1962. Another affidavit has been filed by the University of Bihar, appending to it a copy of the application of Shri Pandey to the Secretary of the Pandaul College, dated the 14th November, 1961, stating that he possessed the minimum requisite academic qualifications for the post of a Principal. One rejoinder petition has also been filed by Shri Pandey and an affidavit has further been filed by him. In the rejoinder petition, reference has been made to the relevant articles of the Statute, and in the affidavit, various matters stated earlier have been reiterated. 5. One rejoinder petition has also been filed by Shri Pandey and an affidavit has further been filed by him. In the rejoinder petition, reference has been made to the relevant articles of the Statute, and in the affidavit, various matters stated earlier have been reiterated. 5. The first point which has been argued by Shri B.C. Ghose, appearing for the petitioner, is based on a violation of the principle of natural justice in connection with Annexures F and I. It is argued that the order of the Chancellor incorporated in Annexure F was passed without hearing the petitioner, and, therefore, it is liable to be set aside as a void order, and if the earlier order was void, the later order, incorporated in Annexure I, must also be declared to be void as it merely modified the earlier order. According to Shri Ghose, even if an opportunity had been granted to the petitioner by Annexure H, asking him to show cause, it was a colourable device to get over the infirmities inherent in Annexure F. Learned counsel has drawn our pointed attention to the particular expression in Annexure H, quoted above, where the petitioner was asked to show cause why the Commission should not recommend to the Chancellor that there was no justification for modifying the order already passed by the Chancellor, as incorporated In Annexure F. According to Shri Ghose, Annexure H did not mean that the petitioner should show cause why his appointment as Principal should not be set aside or modified. In this context, Shri Ghose has relied upon a recent decision of this Court in the case of Ram Kripalu MIshra V/s. University of Bihar, AIR 1964 Pat 41 . In my opinion, the contentions raised by Shri Ghose in this case, based on an infringement of the principles of natural justice, are not valid. Whatever may have been the position when the order of the Chancellor incorporated in Annexure F was communicated to the petitioner on the 18th August. 1962, there is not the slightest doubt that the later order incorporated in Annexure I was passed after a full hearing. As indicated earlier, Annexure C was sent by a member of the Governing Body of the College to the Chancellor, containing a special pleading on behalf of the petitioner. In view of this representation, it appears, that Annexure H was issued. As indicated earlier, Annexure C was sent by a member of the Governing Body of the College to the Chancellor, containing a special pleading on behalf of the petitioner. In view of this representation, it appears, that Annexure H was issued. It is difficult to appreciate how a grievance can be made in this connection, based only on the wordings of the show cause notice. Annexure H specifically stated that as it had been represented that the recommendation of the Commission, on the basis of which the Chancellor had passed the earlier order, was based on insufficient and incorrect information, Shri Jagdish Pandey amongst others, should show cause before the Commission on the 5th December, 1962, in this connection. The words in this show cause notice, to which exception has been taken by Shri Ghose, may have been put in a different way by some other investigating body, but only because the University Service Commission had asked Shri Pandey to show cause why it should not recommend to the Chancellor that there was no justification for modification of his earlier order, It cannot be held that the entire notice Is vitiated as a colourable step to any further improper order. In pursuance of Annexure H, the petitioner flied his representation which is Annexure B, Apparently every possible argument that could be advanced on his behalf was incorporated in it, The petitioner was also heard personally on the 5th December, 1962, and he had filed another representation on the 4th January, 1963, as indicated in Annexure C. It was only thereafter that a second order of the Chancellor was passed, which was communicated to the petitioner on the 18th February, 1963 (Annexure I), Our attention has been drawn by learned counsel for the University Service Commission, to the fact that it had recommended to the Chancellor on the 29th January, 1963, that the Commission was unable to modify its previous recommendation, as the petitioner did not possess the statutory qualifications for being A Principal, and even then the Chancellor had been sympathetic towards Shri Pandey in passing the second order. In reply to this point, Shri Ghose has contended that the Chancellor had no power to review his earlier order to any extent, and Annexure I specifically states that it was in partial modification of the order conveyed on the 18th August, 1962. In reply to this point, Shri Ghose has contended that the Chancellor had no power to review his earlier order to any extent, and Annexure I specifically states that it was in partial modification of the order conveyed on the 18th August, 1962. In my opinion, no question of any review arises in this case and after the petitioner was fully heard by the University Service Commission, before it had sent its recommendation in January, 1963, the order of the Chancellor communicated on the 18th February, 1963, must he taken to be the only order which governs the case of the petitioner now. Only because Annexure I mentions that it is in partial modification of an earlier order, the later order cannot be said to be vitiated. The expression, "in partial modification", merely traces out the history of the situation and it cannot go to the root of the matter vitiating the order incorporated in Annexure I, as a review of an earlier void order in my opinion, Ram Kripalu Mishras case, AIR 1964 Pat 41 relied upon by Shri Ghose, is entirely distinguishable in this connection. In that case, the Chancellors order was quashed on the ground that it had been passed without hearing Shri Ram Kripalu Mishra, and, therefore, the order was violative of the principle of natural justice. On the same ground, the later order of the Secretary of the Governing Body was declared to be ultra vires and illegal. In Ram Kripalu Mishra s case, AIR 1964 Pat 41 he had never been heard at any stage and no order had been passed after giving him an opportunity of being heard. As discussed above, in the Instant case, it has been pointed out that Shri Pandey had been given an opportunity to put forward his case before the University Service Commission, before any commendation had been made to the Chancellor. I am of the opinion that Annexure T, which is an order of the Chancellor, which is decisive of the case of Shri Pandey cannot he challenged on the arguments of Shri Ghose mentioned above. 6. Shri B.C. Ghose has further contended that Sec. 4 of Bihar Act XIII of 1962 is ultra vires and void as it affects the fundamental right of the petitioner guaranteed by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 6. Shri B.C. Ghose has further contended that Sec. 4 of Bihar Act XIII of 1962 is ultra vires and void as it affects the fundamental right of the petitioner guaranteed by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is argued that nothing has been laid down in Sec. 4 of the Act as to how the Chancellor or the University Service Commission should act in taking steps under Sec. 4 and, therefore, this section has given unrestrained and unguided power to these two authorities ft is further urged that no reasons have been given why these two particular dates have been picked out for incorporating in Sec. 4 and, therefore, this provision of law must be struck down. Shri Ghose has relied upon the tests laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Jyoti Pershad V/s. Union Territory of Delhi, AIR 1961 SC 1602 , although the Act under consideration by their Lordships in that ease was held to be good. After considering paragraph 12 of Jyoti Pershads case, AIR 1961 SC 1602 , I fail to appreciate how Shri Ghose can take recourse to any of the principles laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court, without pointing out which particular principle enunciated in this case, can be of any assistance to him. On the other hand, there is sufficient indication, that such meagre and general grounds of challenge may not succeed in every case. For instance, in Jyoti Pershads case, AIR 1961 SC 1602 reference has been made by their Lordships to the earlier case of Kathi Raning Rawat V/s. State of Saurashtra, AIR 1952 SC 123 . In that case, Pantanjali Sastri, J. stated thus: "But the position under Article 14 is different. Equal protection claims under that Article are examined with the presumption that the State action is reasonable and justified. In that case, Pantanjali Sastri, J. stated thus: "But the position under Article 14 is different. Equal protection claims under that Article are examined with the presumption that the State action is reasonable and justified. This presumption of constitutionality stems from the wide power to classification which the legislature must, of necessity, possess in making laws operating differently as regards different groups of persons in order to give effect to its policies." In the same ease, it was further stated that, "On the other hand, if the legislature indicates a definite objective and the discretion has been vested in the State Government as a means of achieving that object, the law itself, as I have said above, cannot be held to be discriminatory, though the action of the State Government may be condemned if it offends against the equal protection clause, by making an arbitrary selection." Applying this test to the impugned S 4 in this case. I find that a question had arisen as to the validity of certain appointments made on or after the 27th November, 1981 and before the 1st March, 1962 necessitating this enactment. In view of this contingency, a discretion was given to the University Service Commission to consider any particular case to test its validity and then to make a recommendation to the Chancellor of the University. The Chancellor of the University had, thereafter, to exercise his own discretion, keeping in view the recommendation of the University Service Commission. It is difficult to hold that the purpose of Sec. 4 was so discriminatory as to deserve condemnation from Courts. Then in Jyoti Pershads case, AIR 1961 SC 1602 their Lordships of the Supreme Court have referred to an earlier case of Harishankar Bagla V/s. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1954 SC 465 where, in dealing with Clause (3) of the Cotton Textiles (Control of Movement) Order (1948), their Lordships stated that the policy underlying the order is to regulate the transport of cotton textile hi a manner that will ensure an even distribution of the commodity in the country and make it available at a fair price to all. The grant or refusal of a permit is thus to be governed by this policy and the discretion given to the Textile Commissioner is to be exercised in such a way as to effectuate this policy. The grant or refusal of a permit is thus to be governed by this policy and the discretion given to the Textile Commissioner is to be exercised in such a way as to effectuate this policy. The conferment of such a discretion cannot be called invalid and if there is an abuse of the power, there is ample power in the Courts to undo the mischief. On this principle also, Sec. 4 under consideration must be upheld as valid. If it is once recognised that the cause for the enactment was to scrutinise certain appointments made; within a certain period, then the discretion given to the University Service Commission and ultimately, to the Chancellor of the University must be exercised for testing the validity of such appointments. It is difficult to accept the argument that this section had left such unrestrained and unguided power in the hands of the two authorities concerned, that the section must be declared to be void as infringing the fundamental rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution, If we proceed on the presumption in favour of the constitutionality of an enactment, as we must, the burden is upon the petitioner in this ease to show that there has been a clear transgression of any constitutional principle (vide Ram Krishna Dalmia V/s. S.R. Tendolkar, AIR 1958 SC 538 ). In my opinion, it is not enough for the petitioner to allege that the power given to the Chancellor and the University Service Commission under Sec. 4 of Act XIII of 1962 is so unreasonable that it is violalive of the petitioners constitutional guarantee under Article 14, It may be stated that the petitioner has not alleged any discrimination as against him. All that he has stated in his petition is that three persons, named in paragraph 21, have not met with the same fate as that of the petitioner. In my opinion, the allegations made in paragraph 21 of the application are wholly insufficient for a conclusion that the petitioner has actually been discriminated against. The University Service Commission in its counter-affidavit has stated that it had no information of the facts alleged by the petitioner in this context. Therefore, it cannot be said that any discrimination has, in fact, been made against the petitioner. The University Service Commission in its counter-affidavit has stated that it had no information of the facts alleged by the petitioner in this context. Therefore, it cannot be said that any discrimination has, in fact, been made against the petitioner. If the University Service Commission had no information of the state of affairs regarding the three persons named by the petitioner in paragraph 21 of his application, it cannot be said that any discrimination has actually been made in picking out of petitioners case for consideration. In challenging the recommendation of the University Service Commission, Shri Ghose has contended that its recommendation was wrong, In view of some of the relevant articles in Statute No. XVI of the Bihar University Statutes. Reliance is placed on Article 1(1) read with Article 1(6). Article 1(1)(a) states that a Principal must have a Second Class Masters Degree, and according to Article 1(6), the qualification of a teacher already in service and confirmed before the 1st July, 1932, shall be considered to be equivalent to the minimum qualification for the post he holds. It s argued that Shri Jagdish Pandey was confirmed as a lecturer on the 23rd September, 1951, and, therefore, It must be taken that his qualification was equivalent to the minimum qualification. That is to say, he must be taken to have a Second Class Masters Degree for all purposes, although as a matter of fact, he had obtained a Third Class Masters Degree. This argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is not valid. Even if it be assumed that under Article 1(6), Shri Pandey would be considered to have the minimum qualification required for the post of a lecturer under Article l(1)(c), it is not possible to hold that for the purpose of appointment as a Principal also, he must be taken to have a Second Class Masters Degree, as required by Article 1(1)(a). In my opinion, all the points raised by learned counsel for the petitioner fall. 7. Towards the conclusion of his argument, Shri B.C. Ghose urged that if the Statutes had been mis-interpreted by the College authorities and the University, in appointing the petitioner as the Principal of the College, irreperable Joss would be caused to the petitioner if the order of the Chancellor, in Annexure I, is now given effect to. 7. Towards the conclusion of his argument, Shri B.C. Ghose urged that if the Statutes had been mis-interpreted by the College authorities and the University, in appointing the petitioner as the Principal of the College, irreperable Joss would be caused to the petitioner if the order of the Chancellor, in Annexure I, is now given effect to. It is urged that after putting so many years of service as a teacher, the petitioner cannot possibly now sit for an examination and obtain a Second Class Masters Degree, as has been ordered by the Chancellor. According to the learned counsel, the result will be that the petitioner has lost his fob in R.K. College where has was a lecturer in Economics since 1948, and now he will be dismissed From the post of the Principal of Pandaul College. In support of this submission, an affidavit was filed in course of the argument, on the 13th April, 1964, in which Shri Jagdish Pandey has affirmed that his petition for leave and lien beyond the 13th July, 1963, has been rejected by the Secretary of the Governing Body of R.K. College, Madhubani, and his action has been approved by the Governing Body of the College and the information has been duly communicated to Shri Pandey. In reply to these contentions, an affidavit was filed on the 21st April, 1964, on behalf of the University of Bihar, affirmed by an assistant working in the University It is stated in this affidavit in reply, that, upon an enquiry made by the University of Bihar from the Secretary of R.K. College, Madhubani, the latter has informed the University that Shri Jagdish Pandey has been granted leave till the 12th July, 1964 A true copy of the letter from the Secretary. R.K. College has been appended to this affidavit and marked as Annexure A. This Annexure A reads as follows: From Shri Brahmdeo Narayan Chaudhary, Secretary, Governing Body, Ram Krishna College, Madhubani. To Shri Jagdish Pandey, Principal, Pandaul College, Pandaul. Sir, With reference to your application dated 15th July, 1983 for extension of your leave without pay till the 15th May, 1984, I have to say that you are allowed leave till the 12th July, 1964 the last day of ensuing Summer Vacation. To Shri Jagdish Pandey, Principal, Pandaul College, Pandaul. Sir, With reference to your application dated 15th July, 1983 for extension of your leave without pay till the 15th May, 1984, I have to say that you are allowed leave till the 12th July, 1964 the last day of ensuing Summer Vacation. On expiry of your leave you are required to join the college on the re-opening day after the Summer Vacation i.e. on the 13th July, 1964. As you have been serving another college for more than 2 years, our college will not like paying you your salary for the Summer Vacation and it is for this reason that you are allowed leave till the last day of Summer Vacation, Please note that no steps have so far been taken for termination of your services in this college as indicated in this office letter No. 439/2-2, dated the 1st July, 1963. Your faithfully, Sd. B.N. Chaudhary Secretary. Memo No. 104/2-2. Dated the 14th April, 1964. Copy forwarded to Dr. P.L. Shrivastava, Vice-Chancellor, University of Bihar, Muzaffarpur, with a true copy of the leave application of Shri J. Pandey. Sd. B.N. Chaudhary Secretary. It appears from the enclosure to this Annexure A, which was a leave application of Shri Pandey, that on the 15th July, 1963, he had applied o the Secretary, R.K. College, for leave without pay upto the 15th May, 1964. According to Annexure A, leave without pay has been granted till the 12th July, 1964, asking Shri Pandey to join the college on the reopening day on the 13th July, 1964. The reason for extending the leave up to 12th July 1964, when leave was asked for up to 15th May, has been supplied in this letter of the Secretary to Shri Pandey. It appears to me that in view of the assurance given by the Secretary of R. K. College to Shri Pandey, his apprehension of losing his old job in R. K. College is unfounded. His job as lecturer in R. K. College is now fully assured 8 For the reasons given earlier, this application fails and it is dismissed, but under the circumstances, without costs. Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 493 of 1963 9. His job as lecturer in R. K. College is now fully assured 8 For the reasons given earlier, this application fails and it is dismissed, but under the circumstances, without costs. Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 493 of 1963 9. It is not necessary to give all the facts of this case in detail, because there is no doubt that if Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 498 of 1963 succeeds, Annexure C of this case must be held to be incomplete. This annexure is a list of ex-officio Members of the Senate, and as against Pandaul College, no name of any individual is mentioned. If, however, Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 498 of 1963 fails, then the petitioner cannot obtain any relief in this case. As Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 498 of 1963 has failed, this case is also dismissed, but without costs. R.J.Bahadur, J. 10 I entirely agree.