JUDGMENT S.P. Sinha, J. By this application, the petitioner prays for quashing the order contained in annexure 12 of the petition, under which the chancellor of the Bihar University has not approved the appointment of the petitioner as a Lecturer in Zoology in Ganga Singh college at Chapra and has approved the appointment of respondent no. 5 to the said post. The ground on which the validity of the said annexure is challenged are two fold: (1) the competency of the chancellor to pass such an order: and (2) the order having been passed in violation of the rules of natural justice. 2. I now state the relevant facts. The petitioner was initially appointee as a lecturer in Zoology in the said college temporarily for three months on the 26th of June, 1976 (vide annexure 1). His services as such were extended from time to time until the 4th of May, 1977, when it was terminated by resolution of the ad hoc committee of the college (vide annexure 2). It appears that such terminations of temporary hands of teachers used to be made on the eve of long vacations and, therefore, the Deputy Registrar Bihar University issued a general letter to all the constituent and affiliated colleges within the jurisdiction of the Bihar University asking them not to retrench the services of the temporary teachers during the long vacations (vide annexure 4). A further general letter was issued (vide annexure-5) to the constituent and affiliated colleges of the Bihar university that if for any reason the services of the temporary teachers had been terminated on the eve of the last summer vacation his services be restored with effect from the due of the retrenchment. In pursuance of the instructions, as contained in annexure 5' the petitioner was allowed by the Principal to join on temporary basis till further orders, vide his letter dated 15th July, 1977 (annexure 6). It may be mentioned that the Government of Bihar in the Education Department, had in the mean while issued a circular dated 18th May, 1977 contained in annexure 3, stopping all appointments in constituent or affiliated colleges of the Bihar University. Subsequently this prohibitory order was recalled and appointment of lecturers on the recommendation of the Bihar Public Service Commission was authorised (vide annexure 7). Subsequently this prohibitory order was recalled and appointment of lecturers on the recommendation of the Bihar Public Service Commission was authorised (vide annexure 7). For the post of lecturer in zoology in the Ganga Singh College, the University Service Commission had recommended the names of two persons namely, that of respondent no.5 and of the petitioner. The Governing Body of the college at a meeting held on 21st January, 1978 appointed the petitioner on permanent basis and sought the approval of the University of the appointment made (vide annexure 11). In the mean while respondent no. 5, filed a representation to the Chancellor against the appointment of the petitioner to the said post. The Chancellor accepted the representation and gave his approval to the first nominee of the Service Commission. i.e. respondent no. 5, for appointment as lecturer of Zoology of the college, with regard to the petitioner, who was the second nominee, the Chancellor directed that his case be considered in accordance with the directions issued by the Government regarding the appointment of temporary lecturer on permanent basis (vide annexure 12). 3. It further appears from the counter affidavit filed by respondent no. 5 that he joined the post of lecturer of zoology in the said college on the 29th of June, 1977. 4. Now the petitioner's case is that since no reference was made by the Governing body to the Chancellor, the latter could not have passed the orders contained in annexure 12. The order was, therefore, incompetent and also in violation of the rules of natural justice, because the same has been passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 5. On the averments noticed above, it is not in dispute that respondent no. 5 was the first nominee and the petitioner was the second nominee for the post of lecturer in zoology. According to the recommendation of the University Service Commission in terms of section 58 of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 (Bihar Act XXIII of 1976) matters relating to appointment dismissal, retirement, removal from service, termination of service or reduction in rank of teachers of the University and college not maintained by the State Government have to be disposed of after obtaining the advice of the State Public Service Commission and with the approval of the Syndicate and the Governing Body of the college. In terms of sub-section 3 (b) of section 58, it is enjoined upon the Syndicate of the Governing Body to make appointments of the persons in the order of merit assigned to them by the Commission, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of recommendations from the Commission, sub section (3) (b) of section 58 lays down that, if the Syndicate or the Governing Body is unable to accept the recommendations of the Commission, it shall record the reasons therefor in writing and submit the case to the Chancellor for final orders'. Essential, therefore the appointments have to be made in the order of merit as recommended by the Commission, if however the order of merit, as recommended by the Commission is unacceptable to the Syndicate or the Governing Body of a college, It has to record the reasons for not accepting the recommendation as made by the Commission and further, the syndicate or the Governing Body has to submit the case to the Chancellor for final orders. Now according to the learned counsel for the petitioner the Chancellor is not competent to pass any order in respect of the appointment, unless the. Syndicate or the Governing Body submits the case to him for final orders. The chancellor could not, it is submitted, pass any orders, as had been done in the instant case, relating to the appointment on the representation made by one of the unsuccessful candidates. The argument further is that if the Syndicate or the Governing Body has selected for appointment one of the persons out of the recommended list, it would not tantamount to unacceptance of the recommendation of the Commission. 6. It is difficult to accept this argument. Acceptance of the recommendation of the Commission has to be understood in the sense that the appointment has to be made in the order of merit assigned by the Commission to the various candidates. If the order of merit, in which the Commission had made the recommendation, is disturbed, it would be as good as not accepting the recommendation of the Commission. The recommendation of the Commission not only has relevance to the names recommended, but also to the order of merit, in which the names have been recommended. If the order of merit, in which the Commission had made the recommendation, is disturbed, it would be as good as not accepting the recommendation of the Commission. The recommendation of the Commission not only has relevance to the names recommended, but also to the order of merit, in which the names have been recommended. Therefore, where a candidate, whose name has been recommended as the first in the order of merit by the Commission, appointing a person next to him will amount to unacceptance of the recommendation of the Commission. It would then be mandatory upon the syndicate or the Governing Body of the college to submit the case to the chancellor for approval of the selection made by it. 7. It is true that in the instant case, the Governing Body of the college had not submitted the case of appointing the petitioner, who was second nominee, for final orders or the Chancellor but as it appears from annexure' 11' the matter had been referred by the secretary of the college to the Registrar of the Bihar University for approval. It further appears that the Chancellor bad called upon the University to submit its comments on the appointment as made and such comments had. in fact, been submitted to the Chancellor, by the Bihar University. The Chancellor, therefore, cannot be said to be not in seisin of the matter. It is not disputed that at the point of time, when the Chancellor passed the order, there was no syndicate of the Bihar University functioning, and in terms of section 10 of the Bihar Ordinance 28 of 1978 dated 24th April, 1978 in such a situation the Chancellor was authorised to function in respect of certain matters including appointment to be made under the University. In view of the aforesaid provisions contained in the said Act it clearly emerges that in making appointments the Governing Body or the college is required to make appointments in the order of merit as assigned by the Commission to the candidates, but if for any reason the Governing body is unable to accept the recommendation. it has to submit the case to the Chancellor for final orders, without the Chancellor's approval the appointment made by the Governing Body will not be final. it has to submit the case to the Chancellor for final orders, without the Chancellor's approval the appointment made by the Governing Body will not be final. Now therefore since the finality of an appointment can be affixed only after the, Chancellor's final order has been passed, whether such final order has been obtained on submission of the case to the Chancellor by the Governing Body or by the Chancellor himself suo motu coming in seisin of the case, looses its significance. Even if the Chancellor has passed the final order having taken jurisdiction over the case without, the' same having been referred by the Governing Body to him, it would not make any difference. The argument put forth on behalf of the petitioner, that the Chancellor was incompetent to pass the orders contained in annexure 12' without the case having been submitted by the Governing Body to the Chancellor for orders, is therefore, not an acceptable argument. In fact, the learned counsel for the petitioner has merely tried to bring out a distinction between the two situations, in whish the Chancellor could pass the final orders, without there being any difference in the ultimate analysis of the matter. After all the appointment of the petitioner to the post of the lecturer in zoology had ultimately to be placed before the Chancellor for final order. Therefore, whether it is placed this way or that way, will hardly make any difference, so long as the fact remains that the appointment of the' petitioner had in fact reached for his final orders. I am, therefore, unable to accept the-argument that the Chancellor was incompetent to pass the orders contained in annexure 12'. The fact of the matter is that annexure' 12' not only protects the right, If the first nominee of the Commission but also protects the rights of the petitioner, in as much as his absorption as a teacher is assured by it. 8. I now take up the question as to whether in the passing of the orders contained in annexure 12' there had been violation of the rules of natural justice by not granting the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. I think, the circumstances under which the order contained in annexure 12' was passed, were such that it was not at all necessary to hear the petitioner in the matter. I think, the circumstances under which the order contained in annexure 12' was passed, were such that it was not at all necessary to hear the petitioner in the matter. The Chancellor was seized with a simple question namely, whether the appointment of the petitioner as a lecturer of zoology in the said college, in preference to respondent no. 5, who was the first nominee of the Commission was proper. The Chancellor was merely approving one of the candidates out of the list of names recommended by the Commission. He was neither introducing any new name to the list of the candidates nor introducing any fact on which a clarification could be made, if the petitioner had been heard. The Commission had recommended two names in order of merit, the first name, being that of respondent no.5 and the second name being that of the petitioner. The Chancellor was called upon to approved out of these two only and as stated earlier, It was necessary for the Chancellor to do so, because the Governing Body had not followed the order of merit as had been assigned by the Commission to the two candidates. The Supreme Court in the case of Nagendra Nath Bora and another vs. The Commission of Hills Division has observed that :- “......the rules of natural justice vary with the varying constitution of statutory bodies and the rules prescribed by the Act under which they function, and the question whether or not any rules or natural justice had been contravened, should be decided not under any pre conceived notions, but in the light of the statutory rules and provisions." Now in the instant case, even if the petitioner had been heard by the Chancellor, he could not have been able to say anything beyond the recommendation as has been made by the Commission. The petitioner could not have said that he was the first nominee and that respondent no. 5 was not the first nominee. In terms of the provisions of the Act, particularly section 58 thereof, it was for the Chancellor to pass final orders, when the recommendation of the Commission had not been accepted in the order of merit as recommended by it. In my opinion, therefore, there was no necessity at all for hearing any one because the end matter had to be decided on the basis of the record. In my opinion, therefore, there was no necessity at all for hearing any one because the end matter had to be decided on the basis of the record. In my opinion therefore, the argument, that the order had been passed in violation of rules of natural justice, is misconceived. 9. There is no merit in this application which is, accordingly, dismissed, but in the circumstances of the case, without costs. I agree. Application dismissed.