Judgment R.M.Prasad, J. 1. In the present writ application, the grievance of the petitioners to be that on 4-7-1985 two posts of Lecturers in Ancient Indian History were sanctioned by the State Government for Ganga Devi Mahila College, Kankarbagh which, at the relevant time, was a College affiliated to the Magadh University. Her case is that after the sanction of the said two posts an advertisement was issued by the Secretary of the College for appointment against the said posts. The petitioner being duly qualified applied for the said post and, later, she was also interviewed by the Selection Committee which recommended her case for appointment as first nominee as against the said two posts. It is claimed that on 4-11-198) the petitioner was appointed as Lecturer vide annexure 3 against the first sanctioned post and she joined. Later, the Government decided to take over different affiliated Colleges, including the College in question. The list of teaching and non-teaching employees prepared by then Governing Body of the College was submitted to the University in which the name of the petitioner was also included as a Lecturer in Ancient Indian History. The further case of the petitioner is that besides the aforementioned two posts, the Government was also requested to sanction four more posts of Lecturers in the said faculty. Later, on 30-9-1986, the College was finally taken over by entering into an agreement as a constituent unit of the Magadh University. 2. It has been submitted by learned Counsel for petitioner that several other persons working in the same Department since before even when the posts were not sanctioned and who had not even applied in response to the advertisement have been absorbed and continued in the college whereas the petitioner, who, after making due application and selection was appointed, her case was arbitrarily ignored. 3. It appears that by order dated 17-1-92, the respondent No. 1, the Secretary to the Government of Bihar, in the Department of Education, known as "Human Resources Development Department" was directed to hear the petitioner personally or to get the matter examined by a high power committee and submit a report to this Court. 4. Pursuant to that order, the Commissioner and Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, passed the order contained in Annexue 26, the validity of which has been challenged by amendment petition filed on behalf of the petitioner on 9-5-1992. 4. Pursuant to that order, the Commissioner and Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, passed the order contained in Annexue 26, the validity of which has been challenged by amendment petition filed on behalf of the petitioner on 9-5-1992. From perusal of the said order it appears that her case had been rejected on two grounds, namely, that in view of the date of appointment of other persons, her position stands below and that the total number of a sanctioned posts available was only two. Thus, according to the Commissioner, she cannot in any view of the matter claim to have been continuing against the posts duly created by the State Government. The other ground which has weighed with the Commissioner appears to be that the appointment of the petitioner has been made in violation of Sec. 35 as also the provisions contained in Sec. 57-A of the Bihar State Universities Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 5. Mr. Mukhopadhaya, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that both the grounds given by the Commissioner for rejecting the claim of the petitioner are wholly untenable. According to the learned Counsel, except the petitioner no other persons mentioned in the impugned order applied for appointment in response to the advertisement (Annexure-1) which was issued after the sanction of the posts in July. 1935. Thus, the plains of the petitioner could not have been rejected by the Commissioner on the ground of seniority between her vis-a-vis others mentioned in paragraph 6 of the impugned order. 6. Prime facie, I find substance in the aforementioned submissions of Mr. Mukhopadhaya. The Commissioner has not considered the case of the petitioner from this angle. He has not at all taken into consideration the advertisement which appears to have been issued after the sanction of the posts. However, as other persons are not party in this petition and as also the fact that the matter requires examination of the fact as well as the claims of the respective party in my opinion, it will be proper if the matter is remited back to the Secretary, Higher Education, who is now concerned with such matters, as stated by Mr. Alam, for re-examination of the matter and to take final decision after due notice to all the concerned teachers of the department. 7. Alam, for re-examination of the matter and to take final decision after due notice to all the concerned teachers of the department. 7. As regards the non-compliance of the provisions of the Act mentioned in the impugned order, Mr. Mukhopadhaya, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the same are not attracted in the cases of the affiliated colleges. He further submitted that in any view of the matter the said provisions have been relaxed with respect to all other teachers similarly situate, including the case of persons mentioned in paragraph 6 of the impugned order as well as in respect of several other teachers of other Colleges. It was also submitted by Mr. Mukhopadhaya that the provision contained in Sec. 35 of the Act in any case is not attracted in the present case as it would appear from the impugned order itself that two posts were sanctioned by the State Government. 8. On the other hand Mr. Alam, learned Counsel appearing for the University as well as for the State Government submitted that the provisions contained in Sub-section (iv) of Sec. 57-A of the Act are mandatory. Under the said provision the appointment of a teacher can only be made on the recommendation of the College Service Commission which admittedly, has not been done in the present case. So far as the provisions contained in Sec. 35 of the Act is concerned, he submitted that according to her own case made in paragraph 16 of the writ application, the petitioner was not working against the sanctioned posts and the University for the first time wrote to the State Government for sanction of the post held by the petitioner, besides some more posts, in the year 1986. 9. Be that as it may, in the absence of the materials in support of the aforementioned contentions as well as in view of the fact that for one matter the matter is being remitted back to Secretary, Higher Education, I do not consider it proper to take any final decision in this regard in the present writ application. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I direct the Secretary, Higher Education, Government of Bihar, who is permitted to be added as a party respondent to this and for whom Mr. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I direct the Secretary, Higher Education, Government of Bihar, who is permitted to be added as a party respondent to this and for whom Mr. Alam accepts notice, to re-examine on this aspects as well after due notice to the petitioner as well as other concerned teachers and giving them opportunity of personal hearing. As the matter has been pending for a long time, it is desirable that the Secretary, Higher Education, should dispose of this matter afresh within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this judgment/ order. The parties, including the petitioner, as well as the teachers mentioned in paragraph 6 of the impugned order and all other concerned teachers of this faculty will be at liberty to represent their case by filing representation/ fresh representation. 10. With the aforementioned observations and directions, the writ application is allowed and the impugned order contained in Annexure 26 is hereby quashed.