Judgment N.P.Singh and N.Pandey JJ. 1. This writ application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner primarily for quashing a communication dated 2.5.1986 (Annexure-8) issued by the Secretary, Bihar College Service Commission, Patna (hereinafter referred to as the Commission) to the Secretary, Governing Body, Jamalpur Evening College, Jamalpur, Munger, purporting to give permanent concurrence to the promotion of Sri Awani Kumar Bhushan, respondent No. 6, with effect from 18.6.1971. According to the petitioner the aforesaid decision communicated by the Commission is not only illegal but also without jurisdiction. 2. According to the petitioner he was Acting Principal of the saiid College from 21.6.1980 to 30.6.1985. It is further claimed that he was appointed as Principal of that College by the ad hoc Committee with effect a from 1.9.1985. As the petitioner continued m the acting and the regular Principal of the College in question for the period aforesaid there was no occasion to issue the impugned communication by the Commission. It was pointed out that at no stage any such concurrence was sought for by the Governing Body or ad hoc Committee of the College in question from the Commission. 3. In respect of respondent No. 6 it has been stated on behalf of the petitioner that he was Professor Incharge of the College in the year 1976 when the Governing Body suspended him and later removed him from the said post for irregularities alleged to have been committed by him. However, even according to the petitioner respondent No. 6 was reinstated in the year 1978. Thereafter an advertisement was published on 21.8.1979 in the daily newspaper inviting applications for appointment to the post of the Principal of the College aforesaid, which was an affiliated College at that time. The petitioner as well as respondent No. 6 and others applied fur the past. The University Service Commission, which under the relevant previsions was to hold interview, hold interview of the candidates, but neither the name of the petitioner nor of respondent No. 6 was recommended for the appointment as the principal of the College. The person whose name was recommended also could not be appointed and ultimately the recommendation of the Commission lapsed. As already stated atated above, according to the petitioner, he was appointed as professor Incharge and acted as Principal of the College between 21.6.1980 and 30.6.1985. The person whose name was recommended also could not be appointed and ultimately the recommendation of the Commission lapsed. As already stated atated above, according to the petitioner, he was appointed as professor Incharge and acted as Principal of the College between 21.6.1980 and 30.6.1985. He has also acted as such later as already mentioned above. The petitioner claims that the ad hoc Committee appointed him as the Principal with effect from 1.9.1985 and the said decision was communicated by a letter dated 17.4.1986 (Annexure-2) 4. Counter Affidavits have been filed on behalf of respondent No. 6, the University and the Commission. On behalf of respondent No. 6 it has been pointed out that he is the Principal of the said College since June 1971 and he was illegally removed from the said post by the then ad hoc Committee. Against that decision an appeal was filed on behalf of the said respondent to the Chancellor On the direction given by the Chancellor the Syndicate of the Bhagalpur University came to the conclusion that the order of termination against the said respondent was had and tie ad hoc Committee was directed to reinstate the respondent No. 6 to his post. Accordingly, respondent No. 6 was reinstated on 6th June 1978 on the post as the principal of the College. It appears that respondent No. 6 was again removed from the said College by the then ad hoc Committee on 12th June 1982. According to the respondent No. 6 the said removal is illegal and not sanctioned by the provisions of the Act and Regulations. Respondent No. 6 has also challenged the claim of the petitioner that he was appointed as the principal of the College in accordance with law. 5. It need not be pointed out that on the pleadings of the parties this Court is not required to decide as to whether the petitioner or the respondent No. 6 has been duly appointed as the principal of the College. The main controversy is in respect of the validity of the communication dated 2.5.1986 (Annexure 3) issued by the Commission to the Secretary of the Governing Body of the College giving permanent concurrence to the promotion of the respondent No. 6 as the principal of the said college with effect from 18.6.1971. 6. The main controversy is in respect of the validity of the communication dated 2.5.1986 (Annexure 3) issued by the Commission to the Secretary of the Governing Body of the College giving permanent concurrence to the promotion of the respondent No. 6 as the principal of the said college with effect from 18.6.1971. 6. The learned Counsel for the University also pointed out about a subsequent development in respect of the said College that during the pendency of this writ application that College has become a constituent College. As such it is no more an affiliated College, so that the question of appointment of Principal can be considered treating the College as a separate unit. Mr. Binod Krishna Jha, appearing for the University, took a stand that after the College has become a constituent College, who should be the Principal of that College has to be decided by the University irrespective of the claims made on behalf of the petitioner and respondent No. 6. Normally, in view of the subsequent development aforesaid we would have passed an order saying that this writ application has become infractions but the parties insisted that the validity of the communication dated 2.5.1986 should be examined by this Court became that may have relevancy later even while judging the claim of the petitioner vis-a-vis respondent No. 6 for the post of the Principal under the University. 7. The Bihar College Service Commission Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act.) made provisions for establishment of a College Service Commission for the appointment of teachers of the affiliated Colleges and to prescribe the power and functions of such Commission. The relevant pare of Sec. 2 of the Act is as follows: 2. Establishment of a College Service Commission for the appointment of teachers of the affiliated colleges and Intermediate Colleges and its powers and functions: * * * * (7) Subject to the approval of the University, appointment dismissals, removals, termination of service or reduction in rank of teachers of affiliated colleges and Intermediate Colleges shall be made by the governing body of the college on the recommendation of the Commission. (8) In making recommendations for appointment to every post of teacher of any affiliated college, and Intermediate College the Commission shall have the assistance of such experts and shall be governed by such conditions as have been laid down in Sec. 57 of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 in this behalf. (9) The Commission shall recommend for appointment to every post of teacher names of two persons arranged in order of preference and considered by the Commission to be the best qualified therefore. The recommendation shall be valid for one year for the date of the recommendation by the Commission. (10) In making any appointment the governing Body of the college shall, within three months from the date of the receipt of the recommendation under Sub-sec. (9), make its selection out of the names recommended by the Commission, and in no case shall governing Body appoint a person who is not recommended by the Commission. (11) Notwithstanding any thing contained in the preceding sub-sections, it shall not be necessary for the Governing Body to consult the commission if the appointment to a post of teacher is not expected to continue for more than six months and cannot be delayed without determent to the interest of the college: Provided that if it is proposed to retain the person so appointed in the same post for a period exceeding six months or to appoint him to another post in the college, the concurrence of the Commission shall be necessary in the absence of which the appointment shall be deemed to have terminated at the end of six months. (12) The commission shall be consulted be the Governing Body of a college in all disciplinary matters affecting a teacher of the college and no memorials or petitions relating to such matters shall be disposed of, nor shall any action be taken against, or any punishment imposed on, a teacher of the college otherwise than in conformity with the findings of the Commission: Provided that it shall not be necessary to consult the Commission where only an order of censure, or an order withholding increment, including stoppage at an efficiency bar, or an order of suspension pending investigation of charge is passed against a teach of a college. 8. 8. On a plain reading, subject to approval of the University, appointment to the affiliated colleges, has to be made by the Governing Body of such colleges on the recommendation of the Commission. While making recommendation for appointments to any such post of teachers which shall also include the post of a Principal, the commission shall have assistance of experts and shall be governed by the conditions as have been laid down in Sec. 57 of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976. On the basis of the recommendation so made by such Commission the Governing Body of an affiliated College has to make selection out of the names so recommended in accordance with Sub-sec. (10) of Sec. 2 of the Act. Sub-sec. (11) Sec. 2 of the Act is in the nature of an exception to the foregoing provisions because it says notwithstanding any thing contained in the preceding sub-sections, it shall not be necessary for the Governing Body to consult the Commission if the appointment to a post of teacher is not expected to continue for more six months and cannot he delayed without detriment to the interest of the college. Proviso to that Sub-sec. enjoins that if any such appointment is to last for a period exceeding six months then the concurrence of the Commission shall be necessary in absence of which the appointment shall be deemed to hive been terminated at the end of six months. On face of it, Sub-sec. (11) of Sec. 2 of the Act prescribes a procedure where appointment is to be made on temporary basis for a period of six months, however, the proviso thereof enables the continuance of such temporary appointee beyond the period of six months with the concurrence of the Commission. 9. We fail to understand as to how the commission by the impugned decision, which was communicated on 2.5.1986 purported to give permanent concurrence in respect of respondent No. 6 and that also with retrospective effect from 18.6.1971 when admittedly the Act was not in force. In the communication itself the Commission claims to have exercised that power under Sec. 2(11) of the Act. In our view, the Commission has exceeded its jurisdiction in granting concurrence with effect from 18.6.11971 in favour of respondent No. 6 and by saying that permanent concurrence to his promotion to the post of Principal was being given. In the communication itself the Commission claims to have exercised that power under Sec. 2(11) of the Act. In our view, the Commission has exceeded its jurisdiction in granting concurrence with effect from 18.6.11971 in favour of respondent No. 6 and by saying that permanent concurrence to his promotion to the post of Principal was being given. The Commission could have given its concurrence within the four corners of Sub-sec. (11) of Sec. 2 of the Act which is only the purpose when any appointee by the Governing Body to any post of teacher is to continue beyond period of six months. The counsel, who has appeared for the Commission, could not point out any other statutory provision, which was in force in the year 1986 when the impugned decision of the Commission was communication vesting power in such Commission to give permanent concurrence with effect from 18.6.1971. He mentioned about some circular issued by the State Government in the year 1986. Any such circular which is not in conformity with Sec. 2(11) of the Act has to be ignored. In such a situation, we are kit with no option but to quash the communication dated 2.5.1986 (Annexure 3) and it is, accordingly, quashed. 10. In the result, this writ application is allowed to the extent indicated above. 11. We, however, direct the respondent-University to take an appropriate decision in respect of appointment of a regular Principal in the college in question, which has since become a constituent College, in accordance with Jaw, preferably within six months from the date of production of this order. 12. Before we part with this judgment, we make it clear that we are not expressing any opinion on the respective claim of the petitioner vis-a-vis respondent No. 6.