Judgmnet P.S. SAHAY, J. All these writ applications have been beard together and will be governed by this common judgment the petitioners in these applications are Class III & IV employees of the different Colleges under Magadh University and have been working as Laboratory Incharge/Store Keeper/Clerks/ Typists (peons and have moved this Court against the order of termination of their service by the University. In C.W.J.C. No. 3878 of 1984 the petitioners have been working in Kanhaiaial Sahu College, Nawadah and they were appointed. On temporary basis by Annexure 2 on 17.2.1982 and have prayed (or quashing the order of termination dated 20-6-1984, as contained in Annexure 10. In C.W.J.C. No. 3530 of 1984 the petitioners have been working in Rohtas Mahila College of Sasaram and they were appointed on temporary basis in the year 1981-82 (Annexure 4) and their services have been terminated by Annexure 6 dated 20-6-1984. The employees of B. S. College, Dinapore, are petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 4091 of 1984 and they were also appointed on temporary basis in anticipation by the, sanction of their posts and they were appointed by Annexure 4 on 14-5-1981. Prayer has been made for quashing Annexure 1 dated 18-7-1984. In C. W. J. C. No. 3716 of 1984 the petitioners have been working as Store Keepers in S. P. M. College, Udantpuri, Biharsharif, and they were appointed by Annexure 1 on 18-2-1982 on posts which were neither sanctioned nor approved and have prayed for the quashing of Annexure 8 and 9 dated 20-6-1984 and 27-6-1984 respectively. The petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 4159 of 1984 were working in J.L.W. College Dehrri-on-Sone and they were appointed on temporary basis in anticipation of the sanction on 23-3-1982. 6-12-1979 and 20-4-1980 (Annexure 1 and 2 series respectively) and their services have been terminated by Annexure 5 dated 18-7-1984. The plaintiffs in C.W.J.C. No. 4149 of 1984 were also employee of J.L.N. College, Dehrri-on-Sone and they were appointed by Annexure 1 in anticipation of approval. Their services have been terminated by Annexure 3 dated 18-7-1984. In C.W.J.C No. 3529 of 1984 the petitioners are employees of T. P. S. College, Patna, and they were appointed on 10-7-1980 Annexure 2 and by Annexure 6 dated, 28-8-1981 on temporary basis subject to the approval and their services have been terminated by Annexure 1 dated 5-7-1984. 2. Their services have been terminated by Annexure 3 dated 18-7-1984. In C.W.J.C No. 3529 of 1984 the petitioners are employees of T. P. S. College, Patna, and they were appointed on 10-7-1980 Annexure 2 and by Annexure 6 dated, 28-8-1981 on temporary basis subject to the approval and their services have been terminated by Annexure 1 dated 5-7-1984. 2. The short facts, leading to these applications necessary to decide the controversy between the parties, are that the petitioners, in all these writ applications, have been working on different posts on the basis of appointment made by advertisement made by advertisement/Governing Body/Vice-Chancellor in different College and also have been drawing their salary. According to the petitioners, these appointments were on the basis of staffing pattern duly approved by the authorities after taking into consider the requirement of the employees according to the number of students studying in different Colleges. But, suddenly their salary was stopped on the ground that their salary was stopped on the ground that they were not appointed on sanctioned posts and also without the approval of the University and for that a committee was constitution which ultimately submitted its report against these petitioners. The report has been seriously challenged by the petitioners. On receipt of the report the University, by different letters, as mentioned petitioners. Being aggrieved by the order of all the termination the petitioners have moved this court. 3. Counter affidavit have been filed on behalf of the University and also by the State of Bihar and reply thereto but I would like to refer only to the facts which are relevant for deciding these cases. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the University, which is common in all the cases, it is stated that under Magadh University there were four types of Institutions : (a) University department, (b) Constituent Colleges directly under the control and management of the University. (c) Affiliated college, and (d) Private Colleges. Institutions mentioned in (a) were directly controlled and managed by the University and the Finance was allotted by the State Government. Affiliated Colleges used to get grants from the State Government through the University. The Colleges in category (d), namely, Private Colleges were managed, financed and controlled entirely by the Management. It was brought to the notice of the government that teachings were not up to the mark in affiliated and private. Affiliated Colleges used to get grants from the State Government through the University. The Colleges in category (d), namely, Private Colleges were managed, financed and controlled entirely by the Management. It was brought to the notice of the government that teachings were not up to the mark in affiliated and private. Colleges and then it was decided to have a proper control and thereafter the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act) was enacted and by incorporation of section 35 no college affiliated to the University had the power to appoint any person on any post without prior approval of the State Government. This provision was deliberately introduced in order to check on the mass appointments made by the Private Colleges on extraneous consideration without considering whether the appointment was necessary and also without considering the merit of the persons concerned. After taking over, some funds were released for salary of the persons who were employed. But, it was brought to the notice of the university that a number of appointments were made on posts which were not sanctioned and also without prior approval of the State Government. The matter was thoroughly enquired into and, thereafter, the State Government, by its letter dated 7th July, 1983, directed that all appointments made on the posts which were not sanctioned and on which State approval was not obtained, should be terminated at once and that view of the matter, the letters of termination were issued, which are sought to be quashed in these applications. The fact that the petitioners of these writ applications have been validly appointed or their appointments have been approved by the University has been totally denied. On the other hand, it has been clearly asserted that the appointments have been made on extraneous consideration without following the norms and procedures. It has also been asserted that a number of persons were appointed when there was no necessity for such appointments only to accommodate certain persons. In support of stand of the University a number of letters have been annexed along with the counter affidavit. 4. The State has also filed counter affidavit the Special Secretary, Education Department. It has also been asserted that a number of persons were appointed when there was no necessity for such appointments only to accommodate certain persons. In support of stand of the University a number of letters have been annexed along with the counter affidavit. 4. The State has also filed counter affidavit the Special Secretary, Education Department. It is stated that in order to have better standard of teaching and for creating better condition of service of teaching and non-teaching staff it was decided that affiliated Colleges should be made constituent College and thereafter, scheme was drawn up to implement the same phase wise depending upon the finance and other requirements. After such declaration such institutions are managed and controlled by the University and the finance is made in the shape of grant by the State Government. It was found that there were a number of surplus teachers and staff and in order to check and control the appointment on such posts section 35 of the Act, was enacted putting restriction that colleges shall not appoint any person of create any post with out the prior approval of the State Government. In spite of that, it was brought to the notice that, it was brought to the notice that a numbers of illegal appointments had been made and, thereafter, the Government letter was issued after through enquiry on 7-7-1983. Regarding Staffing Pattern it stated that it was only for the purpose of taking a decision by the State Government for creating posts, if and when of occasion arose taking into consideration the facilities provided for the students in the shape of building, library, laboratory etc. etc. Staffing Pattern was accepted in principle by the State Government but still posts had to be sanctioned and appointments had to be approved by the University. In short, the Staffing Pattern was simply a guideline for the Government or the University and no appointments could be made even if the posts were necessary on the basis of such Staffing Pattern. 5. Sri Basudeva Prasad appeared in writ Applications 4159, 4149, 3878 and 3530 of 1984; Sri Vinod Kumar Kanth has appeared in C.W.J.C. No.3529 of 1984; Sri Shiva Kirti Singh in C.W.J.C. No. 3716 of 1984 and Sri Rajendra Prasad Singh in C.W.J.C. No.4091 of 1984 . 5. Sri Basudeva Prasad appeared in writ Applications 4159, 4149, 3878 and 3530 of 1984; Sri Vinod Kumar Kanth has appeared in C.W.J.C. No.3529 of 1984; Sri Shiva Kirti Singh in C.W.J.C. No. 3716 of 1984 and Sri Rajendra Prasad Singh in C.W.J.C. No.4091 of 1984 . The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, in all the cases, is that they have been appointed on posts which were vacant, in a regular manner and have worked for a number of years with the knowledge of the University authorities and now their services will be deemed to have been absorbed by the University and the order of termination is bad in law. Further they have contended that the appointment were made on the basis of Staffing Pattern, as approved by the University, according to the strength of the students and, in this connection, reliance has been placed on the report of the District Magistrates Learned Counsel, thus, urged that no question of sanctioning the posts or approval of their services arises. It has been vehemently argued on their behalf that section 35 of the Act, has no application and even if this provision is attracted then it was merely directory and not mandatory. In some cases it has also been argued that the appointment has been made by the Vice Chancellor or who was empowered to do so under section 10(6) of the Act, and now the University cannot challenge the same. Faintly, it was also argued that the law of promissory estoppel will also state at the face of the University. In some cases additional points have been argued which will be dealt with separately. 6. Sri Ram Balak Mahto, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the University, had contended that the petitioners have no legal right to move this court under writ jurisdiction because they were not appointed on posts which were sanctioned nor their appointments have been approved by the University. He has submitted that all these appointments have been done in a most irregular manner in clear violation of the direction of the University and in the teeth of section 35 of the Act. He has submitted that the then Vice-Chancellor made some appointments on the eve of making over charge and some of the officers were also party to it. He has submitted that the then Vice-Chancellor made some appointments on the eve of making over charge and some of the officers were also party to it. The University, therefore, was not bound by their illegal acts and the order of termination has been validly passed after due enquiry and should not be interfered with Before considering the submissions made at the Bar it will be better to give a background of these cases. Formerly, there were a number of University in the State but in order to establish and incorporate affiliating-cum-teaching Universities at Muzaffarpur, Bhagalpur, Ranchi, Gaya and Darbhaga the Bihar Universities Act, 1976 (Bihar Act, XXII of 1976) was enacted. Under Section 3 the territorial jurisdiction of different Universities were also defined and under section 3 (d) the hand in gloves with these petitioners, what has to be seen is whether the appointments were made on sanctioned post or not and whether the appointments were approved by the University. Both these are completely absent even by implications and, therefore, can not be presumed in favour of the petitioners, in absence of any specific order/direction by the competent authority. 7. Now, reading the submission regarding Staffing pattern, it is just a guide line for the University and the State Government, No doubt, there were a number of students in these Colleges which will be apparent from the report of the District Magistrates, but unless the posts are sanctioned, no appointment can be made because the financial burden is on the University or the State Government and they are the persons to sanction the posts taking into consideration various factors. Another important condition is that even the appointment have to be approve by the University. Therefore, the Staffing Pattern of the different colleges, even if approved by the University, cannot come in aid of the petitioners unless the posts are sanctioned by the University. Now, I propose to consider another important submission regarding section 35 of the Act, which, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, will not apply to the case of the petitioners whereas according to the learned counsel for the University it will fully apply to the instant cases. Now, I propose to consider another important submission regarding section 35 of the Act, which, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, will not apply to the case of the petitioners whereas according to the learned counsel for the University it will fully apply to the instant cases. It will be useful to quote the section: “35 No post for appointment shall be created without the prior sanction of the State Government:- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, no University or any College affiliated to such a University, except such Colleges :- (a) as is established, maintained or governed by the State Government; or (b) as is established by a religious or linguistic minority:- (i) Shall, after the commencement of this Act, create any teaching or non-teaching post involving financial liability; (ii) Shall either increase the pay or allowance attached to any post or sanction any new allowance; Provided that the State Government may, by an order, revise the pay-scale attached to such post or sanction any allowance; (iii) shall sanctioned any special pay or allowance or other remuneration of any king including ex-gratia payment or any other benefit having financial implication to any person holding a teaching or non-teaching post; (iv) shall incur expenditure of any king on any development scheme without the prior approval of the State Government. (2) Notwithstanding any anything contained in this Act, no college other one mentioned in clauses (A) and (B) of Sub-section (1), shall, after the commencement of this act, appoint any person on any post without the prior approval of the State Government: Provided that the approval of the State Government shall not be necessary for filling up a sanctioned post of a teacher, for a period not exceeding six. months, by a candidate possessing the prescribed qualification.” 8. The opening lines of section 35 of the Act, says that notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, no University or any college affiliated to such University except such colleges; and reading sub-clause (2) a complete ban has been put to appoint any person on any post without the prior approval of the State Government. In cases of urgency so that teaching of students do not suffer, relaxation has been made only to appoint teachers and that also for a period of six month provided the persons hold requisite qualification. In cases of urgency so that teaching of students do not suffer, relaxation has been made only to appoint teachers and that also for a period of six month provided the persons hold requisite qualification. On the face of these provisions, it is difficult to accept the contention that this provision will not be attracted. The contention of Mr. Basudeva Prasad that section 72 of the Act, will apply in these cases also cannot be accepted. Section 72 of the Act, deals with the effect of transfer of colleges to the University and other provisions related or ancillary to transfer Sub-clause-(3) of section 72 of such Act, may be usefully quoted: “(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in this act, when any College is transferred to the maintenance and control of the University by an order under sub-section (1), the University shall:- (a) employee, such teachers and other servant of the State Government as were serving in or attached to the said College immediately before the commencement of this Act, on such conditions, as may be determined by the State government; (b) Consider the claim, in consultation with the State Government, of employment in its service, if such a claim is made for appointment against such vacancies in the University service by such teachers who are employed in other teaching institutions falling within or without the territorial jurisdiction of the University and are in government service immediately preceding such transfer, and if the filling up of vacancies, by appointment or promotion of University teachers who are in Government service immediately before such transfer results in supersession of the claims of teachers of the referred educational institutions.” Relying on sub-clauses (a) and (b), extracted above, it has been contended that petitioners, who were working prior to 1976 their services will automatically be deemed to have been transferred and only the modalities have to be determined. This argument has been made only in C.W.J.C. No. 4149 of 1984 and it has been urged that the petitioners were appointed prior to the coming into force of the Act. But, in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the University, the appointments of the petitioners of the writ application has been seriously challenged in paragraphs 17 & 18 of the counter affidavit and it has been stated that a committee had been appointed to enquire in to the matter and the findings are against these petitioners. But, in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the University, the appointments of the petitioners of the writ application has been seriously challenged in paragraphs 17 & 18 of the counter affidavit and it has been stated that a committee had been appointed to enquire in to the matter and the findings are against these petitioners. In view of the disputed question of fact it will be difficult for this court in writ jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. The remaining cases are all subsequent to the coming into force of the Act, and it is difficult to accept that even if they were working without valid sanction and without prior approval, their services will also be deemed to have been transferred to the University from the date of the taking over. According to the wordings or the section, in my opinion the services of only those who have been validly appointed will only be transferred and not of all even if they have been working any virtue of illegal appointments by back door methods. From the manner in which the appointments have been made by no stretch of imagination can be said to be a normal procedure. 9. Learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the University, has submitted that point regarding section 35 of the Act, raised on behalf of the petitioners is concluded by the bench decision of the Court in the case of Amrendra Kumar Thakur Vs. State of Bihar. The employees of the Lalit Narain Mithila University had, in similar circumstances, challenged the termination of services and they moved the Court and it was held that they were neither appointed on sanctioned post nor their appointment has been approved and, therefore, they were not entitled to any relief. This decision fully covers the main point urged on behalf of the petitioners. But, Mr. Basudeva Prasad has tried to distinguish that in those cases the approval of appointment was not pending and, therefore, that decision will not apply to the facts of these cases. But, the fact remains that they had also continued service for some time by virtue of some appointments which was held by this court to be not valid. The case, therefore, in my opinion, fully supports the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the University. Another important submission by Mr. But, the fact remains that they had also continued service for some time by virtue of some appointments which was held by this court to be not valid. The case, therefore, in my opinion, fully supports the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the University. Another important submission by Mr. Basudeva Prasad is that under sections 35(2) and 72(3) of the Act, the opening words are “notwithstanding” and therefore the direction under those sections are merely dire4ctory and not mandantory. In this connection reliance has been placed in the cases of Sarwan Singh Vs. Laxmi Narain. But, it is a well recognized rule of the interpretation of the statute that the expression used therein should ordinarily be understood in a sense in which they best harmonize with the object of the statute, and which effectuate the object of the legislature. If an expression is susceptible by narrow or technical meaning, as well as popular meaning the court would be justified in assuming that the legislature used the expression in the sense which would carry out its object and reject that which renders the exercise of its power invalid. Considering the preamble of the Act, and the object thereof it must be held that the legislature intended that appointment should be made only in a regular manner and for that restrictions were put on the Institutions. It has rightly been contended by Sri Mahato that the intention was to cure the evil and if it is held to be directory the very purpose of the Act, will be frustrated. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the directions are mandatory in nature. There is also no conflict between sections 35 and 72 and both, in my opinion, operate in different sphere. Mr. Prasad has placed reliance on section 4(14) of the Act, which gives power to the University to enter into an agreement with other bodies or persons for promoting the purposes of this Act, and to assume the management of any. Institution under them and to take over its asset and liabilities. Therefore, it has been urged that after the University took over the Institutions the services of the petitioners, who were the employees, shall be deemed to be taken over. But, in my opinion, there is no substance because there is no agreement under which the Institution has been taken over. Therefore, it has been urged that after the University took over the Institutions the services of the petitioners, who were the employees, shall be deemed to be taken over. But, in my opinion, there is no substance because there is no agreement under which the Institution has been taken over. Moreover, under the second provision it has been clearly laid down that even after the taking over the university will have the power to review any decision which has not been made in accordance with the rules and procedure. Therefore, this provision is of no help to the petitioners. It has also been contended that in some cases the appointments have been made by the Vice-Chancellor which must be held to be valid in view of the power conferred on him under section 10(6) of the Act, which runs as follows :- “The Vice-Chancellor shall subject to the provisions of this act, the statutes and the Ordinances have power to make appointments to posts within the sanctioned grades and scales of pay and within the sanctioner strength of the ministerial staff and other servants of the University and have control and full disciplinary powers over such staff and servants.” But, such appointments can only be made within the sanctioned strength and even if the Vice-Chancellor has made some appointments that cannot be held to be legal, Learned Counsel for the petitioners in all the cases, have submitted that it was no part of petitioner’s duty to know whether the posts were sanctioned or not and it was also not necessary for them to know the details, and, even if their appointments had not been done in a regular manner they should not be disturbed. This argument, in my opinion, is also devoid of any substance because the manner in which the appointments were made and the manner in which some of the petitioners have joined and, I may add, in such a hurried manner, it is difficult to accept that they were not aware of the legal position. Be that as it may, this Court, while considering their legal rights to move this Court can very well go into that question before issuing any direction in this regard. 10. Mr. Be that as it may, this Court, while considering their legal rights to move this Court can very well go into that question before issuing any direction in this regard. 10. Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, appearing in C.W.J.C. No. 4091 of 1984, has submitted that some persons, who were similarly appointed, have been retained and to continue whereas the petitioners services have been terminated and this amounts to discrimination and, in this connection, reliance has been placed in the case of Manager, Government Press and others Vs. D.B. Bellapppa. The principle of law can not be disputed but this fact has been seriously challenged in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the University and, therefore, it will be difficult for this court to give any relief in this regard. Lastly, it has been submitted that the petitioners have been in service for a fairly long time and have also worked satisfactorily and some of them have become over-age, which will mean grant hardship to them, and, therefore, their services should not be terminated. In this connection, reliance has been placed on. Bench decision of the Punjab High Court in the case of Gurbux Rai Sood and ors. Vs. State of Punjab. In that case the petitioners had worked for eleven years and their termination was quashed because all of them had become over-age and there was a conflict between the regular appointees and promotees regarding seniority and in that situation it was held that it would lead to anomalous position and complications, which in not the position in the cases in hand. In paragraph 21 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the state it is stated as follows :- “That is submitted that the State Government shall take into account the experience of such persons at the time when fresh appointment is made after grant of sanction for such posts.” In view of the stand of the State, no direction is necessary and it will be for there authorities to consider their case sympathetically in future appointments. But no writ can be issued in this regard. 11. The petitioners have failed to make out any case for interference by this Court and, therefore, all the petitions are devoid of any merit and they are, accordingly, dismissed. But, in the facts and circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs. I agree. Applications dismissed.