JUDGMENT : 1. There are case who are the Ranchi two petitioners in this professors of History in University. Respondent no. 2, Dr. Shachee Nivas Singh was also a Professor of History in the Ranchi University, but he has been promoted and appointed as a Reader in History. The present two petitioners were aggrieved by this appointment and promotion and hence they filed this writ petition and obtained a rule Nisi. This petition is for quashing the ORDER :of the Syndicate of the Ranchi University (Annexure H) dated 20.8.1965 appointing respondent no. 2 as Reader of the Ranchi University and also for quashing the ORDER :of the Chancellor of the Ranchi University (Annexure-I) dated 16.6.1967 by which he rejected the representation of the petitioners. 2. The relevant facts which have given rise to this present application briefly stated are as follows : On 15.11.1962 the Vice-Chancellor of the Ranchi University wrote a letter to the Chancellor and this letter is Annexure-Y to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. The Vice-Chancellor in this letter emphasised the necessity of creating a few superior posts of Professors and Readers and he recommended that two posts of Readers, one in Psychology and the other in History should be created. He further also recommended in this letter that simultaneous with the creation of the posts appointments may also be made which will be purely temporary, for a period not more than six months and that steps should be taken to advertise them through the Public Service Commission. According to this proposal, Dr. Shachee Nivas Singh, respondent no. 2 was to be appointed as Reader in History. It also appears from his letter that respondent no. 2 had also been appointed a Reader in the Magadh University and there was thus an anxiety in the mind of the Vice-Chancellor that such posts should be created so that it may stop respondent no, 2 and others of the other departments from leaving posts in the Ranchi University and going to other universities, The Chancellor approved the proposals on 19.11.1962. The qualifications of the various posts of teachers were embodied in the Statutes of the Bihar University and the minimum qualification for the post of a Professor or Reader under the aforesaid Statutes was as follows :- "(a) A high class Master's degree, or equivalent degree of a foreign university and at least ten years teaching experience of Honours or Post-graduate classes. Or (b) A high second class Master's degree, or equivalent degree of a foreign University, followed by a Research degree of Ph. D. standard or published research work of a high standard and at least five years teaching experience in Honours or Post-graduate classes." According to the petitioners in a malafide manner and just with a view to appoint respondent no. 2 permanently to the post of a Reader, amendments in the Statutes regarding the qualifications were proposed and this modification was assented to by the Chancellor. Modification made in the qualification and which received the assent of the Chancellor was as follows :- "A teacher who shall (i) have a first or at least second class Master's degree of an Indian University and have a research degree of a Doctorate standard or a good Honours or equivalent degree of a foreign University, s (ii) have teaching experience of about five years in the Post-graduate or Honours classes, and (iii) have experience of conducting research. The period 10 to 5 years respectively shall not be reduced by more than one year in any case, and the deduction will be made only in exceptional cases for reasons to be recorded in writing. With this modification the Statutes are approved." It may also be mentioned here that admittedly as far as the length of service is concerned, petitioners 1 and 2 are senior to respondent no. 2 because petitioner no. 1 was appointed as a Lecturer in the Ranchi College in 1951 and petitioner no. 2 was appointed in 1953 and respondent no. 2 was appointed a Lecturer in 1956. Petitioner no. 1 had obtained a Doctorate Degree from the Ranchi University in 1965 and petitioner no. 2 had obtained a Doctorate Degree from the University of Hawai (U.S.A.) in 1964, but respondent no. 2 although appointed in 1956 had obtained a Doctorate Degree from the London University in 1955. As pointed above, the appointment of respondent no. Petitioner no. 1 had obtained a Doctorate Degree from the Ranchi University in 1965 and petitioner no. 2 had obtained a Doctorate Degree from the University of Hawai (U.S.A.) in 1964, but respondent no. 2 although appointed in 1956 had obtained a Doctorate Degree from the London University in 1955. As pointed above, the appointment of respondent no. 2 was for a temporary period of six months and on 25.5.1963 the Registrar of the Ranchi University wrote a letter to the Secretary to the Public Service Commission stating therein that respondent no.2 who had been promoted as Reader was the only Teacher qualified for the post and, therefore, the Commission was requested to give its concurrence for his appointment. In the letter of Vice-Chancellor addressed to the Chancellor there was a mention of the fact that the post will be filled by inviting applications by advertisement, but subsequently the Vice-Chancellor decided that it should be filled by promotion. The Public Service Commission was also informed of the same and on 15.7.1965 the petitioners received letters along with proformas from the Secretary, Public Service Commission and these proformas were duly filled in by the petitioners who also submitted them to the Public Service Commission. It may also be mentioned here that the petitioners along with respondent no. 2 were interviewed on 21.7.1965. But it has been urged on behalf of the petitioners firstly that the Vice-Chancellor without obtaining the approval of the Chancellor made a change in the method of appointment, that is to say, deciding the appointment by promotion instead of by open advertisement and secondly that the Public Service Commission was also influenced by the letters which were sent by the Registrar, Ranchi University on the point that respondent no. 2 was the only teacher eligible under the rules for appointment as a Reader because he alone possessed a Doctorate degree at the time of the promotion. The Public Service Commission recommended the name of respondent no. 2 as the only person eligible for the post and the Syndicate accepting the recommendation of the Public Service Commission appointed respondent no. 2 by the resolution which is Annexure-H. The appointment of respondent no. 2 has been challenged by the petitioners on other grounds also. Such as, the irregularity and illegality in the nomination of the two experts to assist the Commission. 2 by the resolution which is Annexure-H. The appointment of respondent no. 2 has been challenged by the petitioners on other grounds also. Such as, the irregularity and illegality in the nomination of the two experts to assist the Commission. According to Section 15 of the Bihar State Universities (Universities of Bihar, Bhagalpur and Ranchi) Act, 1960 [Bihar Act 14 of 1960] which hereinafter for the purpose of abbreviation will be referred to as 'Act XIV of 1960', two experts had to be nominated, one of them by the Syndicate and the other by the Academic Council of the Universities. The Syndicate at least admittedly had started functioning at that time, but both these experts were nominated by the Vice-Chancellor. It has also been urged on behalf of the petitioners that the two experts who were nominated were also not impartial persons, in as much as, they had weakness for respondent no. 2. The recommendation of the Commission, therefore, was vitiated on account of the assistance by such experts. It was also urged that there was one more serious irregularity and it was in this respect that respondent no. 2 was also a member of the Syndicate and he participated in the discussion about his own appointment and as such the resolution of the Syndicate was tainted and should not have been accepted. 3. After the appointment of respondent no. 2 as the Reader of the University, the petitioners filed representation before the Chancellor who gave full opportunity to the petitioners of being heard and thereafter he passed an elaborate ORDER :discussing all the points which had been raised before him and rejected the representation. The petitioners, therefore, being aggrieved by this rejection also have filed this present writ petition. 4. It may also be mentioned here that three more professors of the University also applied for being added as interveners and this permission was also accorded. They have also attacked the impugned resolution and the ORDER :of the Chancellor on the same grounds as have been raised by the petitioners and their prayer is that in the event this writ petition is allowed, their case should also be considered along with the case of the petitioners for the appointment to the post of the Reader. 5. Counter-affidavits were filed on behalf of the Ranchi University, who is respondent no. 1 and also on behalf of respondent no. 2 himself. 5. Counter-affidavits were filed on behalf of the Ranchi University, who is respondent no. 1 and also on behalf of respondent no. 2 himself. I need not state here the submissions which have been made in the counter-affidavits because I will be discussing them while discussing each of the points which have been raised in this case. On behalf of the petitioners the following points have been raised :- (1) The change in the decision to appoint by promotion and not by advertisement was not proper, malafide and ultra vires. (2) The change in the Statute made by the Vice-Chancellor regarding the minimum qualification was also without jurisdiction and malafide. (3) The manner of nomination of experts as well as the personnel of the experts was also malafide, irregular and without jurisdiction. (4) The deliberations of the Syndicate as well as the resolution which was passed were also vitiated on account of the participation of respondent no. 2 himself who was a member of the Syndicate. (5) Two names atleast should have been recommended by the Commission, but the Commission recommended only one name. (6) The appointment of respondent no. 2 temporarily and thereafter making his appointment permanent was also irregular and without jurisdiction. 6. The first contention as stated above is with regard to the change in the decision to appoint by promotion and not by advertisement. The Vice-Chancellor of the Ranchi University in his letter dated the 15th November 1962 which is Annexure-"Y" to the counter-affidavit had sought for the approval of the Chancellor for the creation of the posts of Professors and Readers in different subjects and therein he had also stated that steps will be taken to advertise them through the Public Service Commission. The relevant portion of the letter as contained in Paragraph 4 is as follows :- "It is proposed to make the following appointments simultaneously with the creation of the posts. Of course, these appointments will be purely temporary, for a period of not more than six months. Steps will be taken to advertise them -through the Public Service Commission." The Chancellor approved the proposals and, therefore, it will follow that he approved the method of appointment by open advertisement. Subsequently, there was a change in the decision and it appears that the Public Service Commission was also informed that the appointment to the post of the Reader will be by promotion. Subsequently, there was a change in the decision and it appears that the Public Service Commission was also informed that the appointment to the post of the Reader will be by promotion. The objection to this change in the decision had been taken by the petitioners in their representation to the Chancellor and the ORDER :of the Chancellor in this respect is Annexure-"I" to the petition and as already stated above, it is one of the impugned ORDER :s in this writ petition. The Chancellor has elaborately dealt with this point in his ORDER :, and on a perusal of the ORDER :of the Chancellor along with the counter-affidavits which have been filed in this case, it is quite clear that no doubt there was an approval of the Chancellor that the appointment should be made by open advertisement, but thereafter, a Conference of all the Vice-Chancellors under the presidentship of the Chancellor was held. In the Conference it was decided that such appointments should be made by promotion. The Chancellor in his ORDER :has specifically referred to this aspect of the matter. It has been stated in the ORDER :that soon after the proposal to create the post and to make recruitment by open advertisement was approved on 19.11.1962, the Chancellor sent a letter to the Vice-Chancellor on the 14th of December, 1962, stating that at a meeting of all the Vice Chancellors it had been decided among others that the post of Reader should be filled by promotion and not by open advertisement except in cases where there were no competent teachers available for promotion. It was, therefore, in consonance with this letter of the Chancellor that the Vice-Chancellor decided that the appointment should be by promotion. The relevant Statute in this connection as quoted in the petition of the petitioners is Chapter XV-A (4) (c) and it runs as follows : “The Vice-Chancellor shall with the approval of the Chancellor decide whether the post is to be filled by promotion or by direct recruitment after proper advertisement. The relevant Statute in this connection as quoted in the petition of the petitioners is Chapter XV-A (4) (c) and it runs as follows : “The Vice-Chancellor shall with the approval of the Chancellor decide whether the post is to be filled by promotion or by direct recruitment after proper advertisement. Before taking such decision the Vice-Chancellor in consultation with the Dean of the Faculty concerned and such other experts amongst the teachers of the University as he may deem fit, shall determine if any further specialised qualifications in addition to those prescribed in the Statutes should be laid down for the particular post; and in deciding whether the post is to be filled by promotion or by direct recruitment the requirement of such further specialised qualifications, if any, shall be kept in view". The aforesaid Statute, therefore, empowered the Vice-Chancellor with the approval of the Chancellor to decide whether the post should be filled by promotion or by direct recruitment after proper advertisement. The discretion rested with the Vice-Chancellor. I do not think that once it was decided that the appointments should be made by open advertisement, this decision could not be altered specially in view of the circumstance that at a Conference of the Vice-Chancellors it had been decided that such appointment should be by promotion. The Chancellor who was the President of that Conference had naturally to see that the resolutions passed at such a Conference were duly implemented and, therefore, this change in the decision about the method of recruitment was obviously with the full concurrence and approval of the Chancellor. 7. It may also be mentioned here that such a change in the decision was also quite reasonable and proper because it was in the interest of the teachers of the University who may not feel handicapped and frustrated that their chances of promotion were being hampered. It was to the interest not only of the teachers, but also in the interest of the efficient working of the University. It was also clear that such a decision could not have in any way prejudiced the petitioners, but as a matter of fact, it gave more chances to the petitioners because they were saved of an open competition. It was to the interest not only of the teachers, but also in the interest of the efficient working of the University. It was also clear that such a decision could not have in any way prejudiced the petitioners, but as a matter of fact, it gave more chances to the petitioners because they were saved of an open competition. I do not also think that this change in the decision was in any way malafide because as pointed above, it was just by way of implementation of a solemn decision taken at the Conference of the Vice-Chancellors. There is thus no merit in this contention raised by the petitioners. 8. The second contention which has been raised in this case is that the change in the Statute regarding the minimum qualification was also without jurisdiction and malafide. The facts which I have stated above, will show that a change in the Statute regarding the minimum publication was made and this change was in this respect that in addition to qualification of being an M.A. of an Indian University, the persons should have also a Research Degree of a Doctorate standard or a good Honours or equivalent degree of a foreign University. There was a proposal by the Vice-Chancellor to make this charge in the Statute and the approval of the Chancellor to this was on 26.11.1962. It has been urged on behalf of the petitioners that by 26-11-1962 the Senate of the Ranchi University had come into existence. Under Section 60 of Act 14 of 1960 read with Section 25 (Bihar Act 2 of 1962), the powers of the Chancellors ceased after coming into existence of the Senate and, therefore, such an approval of the proposal was without jurisdiction. In the counter-affidavits filed on behalf of the respondents it has been stated that this change in the Statutes regarding the qualification was at the instance of the Chancellor himself. According to the respondents the Chancellor desired that the existing statutory qualifications as laid down for University Professors and Readers should be revised and the Secretary to the Chancellor, by his letter dated 23-5-1962 addressed to the Vice-Chancellor of the respondent University forwarded a draft of the revised qualifications for the posts of Professor and Reader. According to the respondents the Chancellor desired that the existing statutory qualifications as laid down for University Professors and Readers should be revised and the Secretary to the Chancellor, by his letter dated 23-5-1962 addressed to the Vice-Chancellor of the respondent University forwarded a draft of the revised qualifications for the posts of Professor and Reader. Along with the counter-affidavits a copy of the revised qualifications has also been annexed and it is Annexure "Z", The Vice-Chancellor in pursuance to the suggestions of the Chancellor, made the necessary revision in the qualifications in the existing Statutes and sent formal letter to the Chancellor forwarding a copy of the modified Statutes on the 8th of June, 1962. A copy of that has also been attached to the counter-affidavits and it is Annexure-"Z/l". The position, therefore, is that there was a suggestion on the initiation of the Chancellor himself for making modification in the Statutes regarding the qualifications of the posts of Professors and Readers and this was as early as in May, 1962. The Vice-Chancellor sent his suggestions and accepted the proposal regarding the proposal regarding the change in the qualifications and this was by the letter of the Vice-Chancellor (Annexure-"Z/l") which is dated 8-6-1962. It appears that somehow the approval of the Chancellor at that stage had not been received. Proposal for the creation for the post of Reader and the appointment of respondent no. 2 was made by the Vice-Chancellor, as stated above, on 15-11-1962, but the proposal for the change in the Statutes regarding the qualifications had emanated and the Vice-Chancellor had written to the Chancellor for the amendment as early as in June, 1962. It cannot, therefore, be said that the change in the Statute was malafide and just with a view to enable the Vice-Chancellor to appoint respondent no. 2 as the Reader. True it is, that the final approval of the Chancellor had not been given till 26-11-1962, but it has to be seen in the light of the adjoining and surrounding circumstance preceding the actual approval. 2 as the Reader. True it is, that the final approval of the Chancellor had not been given till 26-11-1962, but it has to be seen in the light of the adjoining and surrounding circumstance preceding the actual approval. The change, therefore, in my view was with the full approval of the Chancellor and as a matter of fact, it was on his initiation, True it is, that the approval of the Chancellor was after the Senate came into existence, but it related to a matter which had already been finalised long before the Senate came into existence. It may also be mentioned here that the Chancellor in his ORDER :also has dealt in details about the change in the Statutes and it also appears that this change was not only reasonable and proper but also essential. Prior to the amendment of the Statutes the position was that a Doctorate Degree was not necessary for the post of a Reader and after the amendment building (sic) of a Doctorate Degree was necessary for appointment to the post of a Reader. The work of a Reader in the University is primarily to direct research and naturally it would be in the fitness of things that a teacher holding the position of a Reader, who has to direct research should himself hold a Doctorate Degree. It may also be pointed that this change in the qualification was not only for the post of a Reader in History, but for the post of Readers in all the subjects. In view of all these facts here also I think that it cannot be said that the change in the Statutes was in any way malafide or just with a view to enable the Vice-Chancellor to appoint respondent no. 2 as the Reader. 9. Now in view of the change in the Statute regarding the minimum qualification, a question naturally arose as to who should be regarded eligible for the post with reference to the date on which he obtained a Doctorate Degree. I have already pointed above, that although petitioners were senior from the point of the length of service to respondent no. 2, but respondent no. 2 had obtained a Doctorate Degree from the London University in 1955. Petitioner no. 1 has obtained a Doctorate Degree from the Patna University in 1965 and petitioner no. I have already pointed above, that although petitioners were senior from the point of the length of service to respondent no. 2, but respondent no. 2 had obtained a Doctorate Degree from the London University in 1955. Petitioner no. 1 has obtained a Doctorate Degree from the Patna University in 1965 and petitioner no. 2 had obtained a Doctorate Degree from the University of Hawai in 1964. The sanction for the creation of the post was in November, 1962 and there was also at that time the approval of the Chancellor that the post should be filled up and pending the permanent appointment for a temporary period respondent no. 2 should be appointed. In 1962, therefore, according to the change in the Statutes regarding the minimum qualification respondent no. 2 was the only eligible candidate because he held Doctorate Degree at ,that time, but petitioners 1 and 2 at that time did not hold any Doctorate Degree. It was only in 1964 and 1965, that is, long time after the creation of the post and the decision for appointment as Reader that they obtained a Doctorate Degree. Unfortunate as it may be, the change in the Statutes naturally adversely affected the petitioners, but taking a general view of all the facts and the circumstances, the stand taken by the University in this respect cannot be regarded in any way mala fide, illegal or improper. 10. It has also been urged that it was improper on the part of the Registrar of the Ranchi University to write to the Public Service Commission about the eligibility of the candidate, but the Registrar, in my opinion, was within his rights in pointing to the Public Service Commission as to who would be the eligible candidate for appointment by promotion in view of the change of the Statutes regarding the minimum qualification for the post of a Reader. It appears that somehow the Public Service Commission was of the view that the recruitment should be by open advertisement and so naturally the Public Service Commission had to be informed about the actual position. The fact that proforma was sent to the petitioners would not give them any right to the post. The petitioners as well as the respondent no. 2 filled up the proformas and the Commission interviewed them also and after the interview the Commission wrote to the University recommending respondent no. 2. The fact that proforma was sent to the petitioners would not give them any right to the post. The petitioners as well as the respondent no. 2 filled up the proformas and the Commission interviewed them also and after the interview the Commission wrote to the University recommending respondent no. 2. In this connection, the learned counsel for the respondent have also filed a printed book containing the minutes of the Syndicate of the Ranchi University and they have relied on a letter dated 4.8.1965 from the Bihar Public Service Commission to the Registrar, Ranchi University. In this letter it was stated as follows: "The Commission interviewed the teachers for appointment to one post of Reader in History under Ranchi University by promotion on the 21st July, 1965. Dr. R.S. Sharma of Patna University and Dr. N.L. Singh of Benaras Hindu University, Varanasi assisted the Commission as experts. 2. The Commission recommended Dr. S. N. Singh, the only teacher eligible in terms of the Statutes, for appointment to the post of promotion." This letter shows firstly that interview was held on 21-7-1965, but the Commission naturally keeping in view the terms of the modified Statutes recommended only the name of Dr. S.N. Singh (respondent no.2) being the only teacher eligible in terms of the Statutes for the appointment. Once the decision was that the appointment should be made by promotion so naturally for such candidates had to be considered who were already in the employment of the University and such of those who held the minimum requisite qualification. As pointed above, respondent no. 2 was the only person who held the requisite qualification and, therefore, he was rightly recommended by the Commission for appointment. 11. The learned counsel for the respondents have also in this connection referred to Section 55 (3) of Act XIV of 1960. Section 55 deals with the conditions of service of officers and teachers of the University. It lays down certain safeguards in the conditions of the service of teachers on the creation of the University and the transference of the service of such teachers in the University. Section 55 deals with the conditions of service of officers and teachers of the University. It lays down certain safeguards in the conditions of the service of teachers on the creation of the University and the transference of the service of such teachers in the University. Clause (c) of Sub-section (3) of Section 55 lays down as follows: "The University to which such officers, teachers and servants are deemed to have been transferred under Clause (b) shall employ them subject to such terms and conditions as were in force [with respect to them] immediately before the commencement of this Act and they shall be subject to such disciplinary control as are for the time being applicable to the officers, teachers and other servants of that University appointed under this Act." Reliance has been placed on the first part of this clause and it has been urged that the change in the Statutes affected the terms and conditions of the teachers. I may also refer here in this connection to the provisions of Section 60 of the Act which lays down about the continuance of Statutes, Ordinances, etc. which were in force under Bihar Act XXVII of 1951. Clause (c) of Subsection (3) of Section 55 only safeguards that on transference the teachers shall be deemed to have been employed subject to such terms and conditions as were in force at that time. I have already referred and quoted the relevant Statute, Chapter XV-A (4) (c) which existed at that time and it clearly empowers the Vice-Chancellor to lay down, if any, further specialised qualification in addition to those prescribed in the Statutes for the particular post. The change in the Statutes, therefore, cannot be regarded in any way as one contravening the provisions of Clause (c) of Subsection (3) of Section 55 of the Act. Further more, I am of opinion, that what is contemplated in Clause (c) with regard to the terms and conditions of service will not include appointment to such specialised post as of a Reader. There is thus no merit in this contention also. 12. The third contention which has been raised is with regard to nomination of experts and also the personnel of the experts. There is thus no merit in this contention also. 12. The third contention which has been raised is with regard to nomination of experts and also the personnel of the experts. The letter of the Commission which I have quoted above shows that there were two experts who assisted the Commission at the time of the interview, one of whom was Dr. R. S. Sharma of Patna University and the other was Dr. N. L. Singh of Benaras Hindu University, Varanasi. Sub-section (2) (i) of Section 15 of Act XIV of 1960 lays down as follows :- "In making recommendations for appointment to every post of teacher of the University the State Public Service Commission shall have the assistance of two experts in the subject for which an appointment is to be made, of whom one shall be nominated by the syndicate and shall whenever possible be a teacher of the University and the other shall be a person, other than a teacher of the University, to be nominated by the Academic Council." It was, therefore, necessary as required by this Section that one expert should have been nominated by the Syndicate and the other by the Academic Council. Neither of these experts were appointed by either of them and both these experts had been nominated by the Vice-Chancellor. There was thus no doubt that an irregularity, but I think that this irregularity will not in any way invalidate the recommendation of the Commission really had to decade as to which of the candidates were entitled to promotion having regard to the change in the Statutes and other circumstances. It was really a question of determination of the eligibility, and presence of experts, therefore, really did not materially affect the matter. True it is that there were allegations also made that the two experts were biased towards petitioners, but at the same time it appears that this position cannot also be disputed that the two experts were men of reputation as far as their academic qualifications were concerned. Now, even if, these two experts were biased, it did not make any difference because as pointed above really the question which had to be decided was as to which of the candidates were eligible under the rules. It may also be mentioned here that naturally respondent no. Now, even if, these two experts were biased, it did not make any difference because as pointed above really the question which had to be decided was as to which of the candidates were eligible under the rules. It may also be mentioned here that naturally respondent no. 2 could not have anything to do in the nomination of the experts and so if there was any irregularity, it was not due to any fault on his part. It seems that rather inadvertently somehow the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 15 were overlooked when the nomination of the experts was made. But having regard to all the facts and circumstances, there is no merit in this contention also which fails. 13. The fourth contention which has been raised is about the participation of respondent no. 2 in the passing of resolution making his appointment. The resolution of the Syndicate which is Annexure-“H" dated 20-8-1965 shows that Dr. S.N. Singh was also one of the members of the Syndicate and he was present. It was, therefore, urged on behalf of the petitioners that he also participated in the discussion. Respondent no. 2 in his counter-affidavit has stated on oath that, no doubt, he was present, as he was a member of the Syndicate and there were other matters in the Agenda, but he did not participate in the discussion about the resolution relating to his appointment. Indeed, it would be highly improper if he had participated in the discussion relating to his own appointment and I think there is no reason to discredit this testimony on affidavits by him that he did not participate in the discussion of this item in the Agenda. This contention, therefore, also falls. 14. The fifth contention which has been raised is that two names atleast should have been recommended by the Commission and in this connection, I may refer here to Sub-section (3) of Section 15 of the Bihar Act XIV of 1960 which runs as follows :- "Subject to the provisions of Subsections (1) and (2) the State Public Service Commission shall, wherever feasible, recommend to the Syndicate for appointment to every post of teacher or officer of the University names of two persons arranged in ORDER :of preference and considered by the State Public Service Commission to be the best qualified therefore". 15. 15. True it is that as required by this section two names had to be recommended by the Commission, but at the same time, the section has qualifying Clause also because it is stated “wherever feasible". This clearly shows that it is not mandatory that in every case the Commission should and has to recommend two names. In this present case the recommendation of two names was out of question because the other two candidates were not eligible under the rules and, therefore, in much circumstances, there was no violation or contravention of this section of the Act. 16. Lastly, it has been contended on behalf of the petitioners that the Vice-Chancellor first made temporary appointment of respondent no. 2 and thereafter made his appointment permanent and as such it was irregular. The facts and the circumstances of the case show that the Vice-Chancellor after obtaining the approval of the Chancellor in November, 1962 appointed the respondent no. 2 as a Reader in History. This was not the only temporary appointment, but there were other temporary appointments made also by the Vice-Chancellor in other subjects. Just before the expiry of the period of six months reference was made to the Commission and thereafter the respondent no. 2 continued in his post until there was the interview by the Commission on 21-7-1965 and then the recommendation by the Commission. Having regard to all these facts, I do not see that there was any irregularity either in the temporary appointment or continuance of respondent no. 2 on such post. 17. On a consideration of all the facts and the circumstances of the case there is no merit in this petition and therefore, it is dismissed, but there will be no ORDER :for costs. I agree. Petition dismissed