JUDGMENT S. B. Sinha, J. In this writ application the petitioners who are 23 in numbers, have prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ directing the respondents to pay their salary since October, 1980 on which date Shivdeni Ram Ayodhya Prasad College, Bara Chakiya, East Champaran (hereinafter to be referred as the college) was made constituent unit of the Bihar University. 2. The fact of the matter lies in a very narrow campus. The petitioners are said to be non-teaching staff of the said college. The said college was established in the yerr 1969-70 and was a privately managed institution. It is alleged that the petitioners were appointed on different dates by the then Governing Body of the College. It is further stated that on on 4.1.78 a notice was published for filling up vacancies in the newly created posts and pursuant there to petitioners nos. 1 to 5, 7 & 12 applied for their appointment against class III post non-teaching post and petitioner nos. 13 & 14 applied for appointment against vacancy of class IV post. Thereafter, the governing body allegedly in its meeting dated 25.5.80 considered the matter and different office orders dated 24.6.80 were issued appointing the petitioners. It is stated that the said college was thereafter taken over by the State of Bihar and made a constituent unit of the University from October, 1980, However, despite the same no salary was paid to the petitioner. According to the petitioner in the agreement entered into by the college authorities and the State of Bihar relating to take over the said Institution the following agreements were arrived at :- "(i) The non-teaching employees appointed after 15th of August, 1976 against the sanctioned post but have not been granted approval, who used to receive salary prior to take over the college, their salary be released with effect from 1.8.1984 and the Government be moved for granting approval of their appointment. (ii) The non-teaching employees appointed after 15th of August, 1976 against the posts, which are within the Staffing Pattern, as decided by the Syndicate of the University, and who used to get payment prior to take over they should be paid salary on the basis of daily wage; and (iii) To set up a Three Men Committee to examine claims of other non-teaching employees appointed against un-sanctioned post and such Committee should submit its report, so that payment with respect to such employees can be made with effect from 1.8.1984”. Copy of the said agreement is contained in Annexure-10 to the writ petition. 3. It has been stated that 11 persons who were appointed on 7.7.80 along with the petitioner, were paid salary but the petitioners have not been paid their due salary. It has also been contended that the respondents State took a decision with regard to the absorption of the teaching and non-teaching staff of the Constituent unit in the following manner :- "(a) That the persons, who have been appointed prior to 10th of May, 1986 as non-teaching employees even against an unsanctioned post, they will be retained in service and not be thrown out. The persons who have been appointed after 10th of May, 1986 without approval of the State Government and against unsanctioned post will be thrown out. (b) To create such number of non-teaching post to which a college is entitled in accordance with the Staffing Pattern, laid down by the Inter-University Board and thereby to absorb the non teaching employees, who were appointed prior to 10th of May, 1986 against such non-teaching post. (c) That even after such sanction of non-teaching post, on the basis of Staffing Pattern, and absorption of non-teaching employees, if some non-teaching employees remain without any sanctioned post they will not he thrown out from service but to be absorbed against future vacancies." A copy of the said resolution dated 10.5.1991 is Annexure-20 to the writ petition. 4. An intervention application has been filed on behalf of Ganesh Prasad and Lakshman Bhagat wherein it was stated that the Principal of the college had also recommended for absorption of the interveners and also for payment of salary. 5. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent-University wherein, inter-alia, it was stated that most of the petitioners were appointed after 7.7.80. 5. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent-University wherein, inter-alia, it was stated that most of the petitioners were appointed after 7.7.80. It has been submitted that the appointment of the petitioners on non-teaching post was never approved by the University. It was further submitted that in terms of section 35 or the Bihar State Universities Act 1976 appointments cannot be made to any post without the prior sanction of the State Government and after 16.1.1976 i.e. after coming into force of the said Act the Governing body the college had no right to make such appointment. It is stated that the Governing Body of the affiliated college upon having come to learn about resolution of the State of Bihar to take over the said college, in hot haste created such posts and make appointments in large numbers which would be evident from the fact that 27 appointments have been made on 7.7.80 itself. It is stated that clauses 4 & 5 of the agreement clearly lay down that liability of the teaching and non-teaching staff cannot be by the University whose appointments have been made without taking approval of the University. Further it has been stated that by an order of 7.8.84 the State Government directed the vice Chancellor to cancel illegal appointments and the Bihar University also by its letter dt. 30.7.83 directed the Principals of affiliated colleges as also constituent colleges and the Head of all the Departments to cancel the appointments in terms of the aforementioned letter of the State of Bihar. It has been submitted that the State Government has issued several directions but till today no post has been sanctioned. 6. Mr. S. J. Mukhopadhaya, learned counsel for the petitioners has raised a short question in support of this application. Learned counsel submitted that in view of the aforementioned resolution dated 10.5.91 the State Government must be deemed to have sanctioned the post in exercise of its power under section 35 (2) of the Bihar State Universities Act. It was submitted that as the posts are sanctioned, the petitioners should be directed to be paid their salary. Learned counsel submitted that in view of the aforementioned resolution dated 10.5.91 the State Government must be deemed to have sanctioned the post in exercise of its power under section 35 (2) of the Bihar State Universities Act. It was submitted that as the posts are sanctioned, the petitioners should be directed to be paid their salary. Our attention has also been drawn to a judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court in Kiran Prakash Gupta & ors-vrs-The State of Bihar & ors in C.W.J.C. No. 1730/86 and other analogous cases disposed of on 22.5.92 wherein the State Government was directed to give sanction on Staffing pattern and the University was also directed to screen the individual cases for the purpose of finding out as to whether salary has been paid to them or not. Out attention has further been drawn to an order dated 14.12.1993 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 8082/92 in Arun Kumar Singh vrs-The State of Bihar, whereby and were under a Division Bench of this Court of which one of us (S. K. Singh, J) was a member held as follows ;- “There is no denial that as per the resolution of the Government the Respondent University has to make an enquiry and to submit a list of the candidates before the State Government for creation/sanction of the posts. In that view of the matter, we direct the respondent-University to examine all the relevant materials and make a recommendation before the Government in accordance with resolution (Annexure-1) for sanction/creation of posts. The report must be furnished within four months. Thereafter on receipt of such recommendation, if any the Respondent no. 2 shall take a firm decision for creation/sanction of the posts as per the resolution of the State Government (Annexure-1). Such decision should be taken by respondent no. 2 within three months from the date of receipt of the recommendation by the University. If such posts are sanctioned by the State Government, the University shall pass an appropriate order for absorption/regularization in accordance with law within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the sanction order by the State Government. " 7. Section 35 of the Bihar State Universities Act reads thus : "35. If such posts are sanctioned by the State Government, the University shall pass an appropriate order for absorption/regularization in accordance with law within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the sanction order by the State Government. " 7. Section 35 of the Bihar State Universities Act reads thus : "35. Post for appointment shall not be created without prior sanction of the State Government:- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act no University or constituent college of such University, except a college which. (a) is established, maintained or governed by the State Government, or (b) is a college established by religious or linguistic minority. (i) shall, after the commencement of this Act, create any teaching or non-teaching post involving financial liability without the prior approval of the State Government : (ii) shall increase the pay or allowances attached to any post, or sanction any new allowance; Provided that the State Government may by, an order, revise pay-scale attached to such post or sanction any new allowance; (iii) shall grant any special pay or allowance or other remuneration under any description whatsoever ex-grantia including payment or any other benefits having financial implication to any person holding a teaching or non-teaching post; (iv) shall incur expenditure of any kind on any development scheme without the prior approval of the State Government. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, no college, other than any of the college mentioned in clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (1), shall after the commencement of this Act, appoint any person to any post without the prior sanction of the State Government ; Provided that no sanction of the State Government shall be necessary for filling up any sanctioned post of a teacher, for a period not exceeding six months, by a candidate who possesses, the prescribed; qualifications. " 8. From a bare perusal of the aforementioned provision, it is abundantly clear that the said provisions are mandatory in nature. It is well settled by various decisions of this Court that any appointment made in violation of the provisions of Section 35 of the Act is a nullity and no legal right is derived by the appointees in this regard. Reference may be made to a decision in Bijay Kumar Azad vrs-The State of Bihar & ors reported in 1984 BBCJ-624, Baleshwar Prasad & ors. Reference may be made to a decision in Bijay Kumar Azad vrs-The State of Bihar & ors reported in 1984 BBCJ-624, Baleshwar Prasad & ors. vrs-The State of Bihar & ors reported in 1985 BBCJ-438 and Baleshwar Prasad & ors-vrs-The State of Bihar & ors reported in 1985 PLJR (NOC) 29 at page 30. Recently, this Court In Manoj Prasad & ors-vrs-Ranchi University & ors reported in 1993 (2) BLJR 893 held as follows :- "It is, therefore, obvious that these appointments were made in breach of the mandatory provisions of Section 35 of the Act. It is no one's case that the State of Bihar has, at any stage, sanctioned the posts. Once it is held that the appointments were illegal and they stood terminated by separate orders issued In May, 1988, there is no question of payment of wages to the petitioners. It is not disputed that from May, 1988 onwards till August, 1989, the petitioners were not paid their wages. From September, 1989 to January, 1991 the then Principal without any authority permitted them to work and paid them their wages despite the orders of termination of their services. That would not clothe the petitioners with a right to continue to receive wages from the college, The claim of wages is dependent upon the subsistence of employer/employee relationship. If the services of the petitioner stood terminated in May, 1988 and that order was never recalled, set aside or stayed by any competent authority, the petitioners will not be justified in claiming wages because they ceased to be employees of the college. Their claim for wages has, therefore, no merit. We may only observe that this is not the solitary instance where such illegalities have been discovered. The educational system in this State is in a shambles and the whole system has come to a grinding halt for many reasons; one or them is that despite a ban imposed by law, the Principals of various college, and in some cases Governing Bodies, have been making illegal appointments against unsanction posts for ulter for considerations. The fund granted to the colleges by the University is based upon the sanctioned posts. The fund granted to the colleges by the University is based upon the sanctioned posts. When that amount is sought to be distributed amongst a larger number of employees, most of them with illegally appointed, it give rise to resentment on the part of genuinely appointed teachers who are either not paid their salary in full, or do not receive any salary at all for several months. Any effort to deal with such illegal appointment gives rise to lawlessness, and the atmosphere in the colleges is completely vitiated. Unless the State and the University-authorities take firm action against such Principals and the members of the Governing Body, the situation is not likely to improve." Following the last decision another Division Bench of this Court in Gopal Krishna pathak & ors-vrs-Ranchi University & ors, reported in 1993 (2) BLJR-897 reiterated the said view. 9. In those decisions this Court has clearly held that a person whose appointment is illegal having been made in contravention of the provision of the Statute, cannot obtain benefit of issuance of writ of or in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay salary to them. In these, cases, it has not been disputed that prior to appointment of the petitioners, the Governing Body of the college had not taken approval of the University nor the posts were sanctioned by the State Government. This aspect of the matter has also been considered by us recently in C.W.J.C. No. 10378/93. 10. Following the aforementioned decisions we can not give any relief to the petitioners. However, it would be open to the State Government to grant sanction to such class III and IV non-teaching post as it may deem fit and proper keeping in view the requirement of the college concerned or after screening the cases of all persons who are eligible for appointment may be considered by the competent authority in accordance with law and after following the procedure laid down there for in compliance of the provision of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. So far, as the matter relating to payment of salary is concerned, the University may hold an enquiry and pass such order or orders as it may deem fit and proper upon taking into consideration the fact regarding their mode of appointment as to whether any of the petitioners had actually worked in the college in question or not. 11. So far, as the matter relating to payment of salary is concerned, the University may hold an enquiry and pass such order or orders as it may deem fit and proper upon taking into consideration the fact regarding their mode of appointment as to whether any of the petitioners had actually worked in the college in question or not. 11. This application is disposed of with the aforementioned directions. Application disposed