Judgment A. K. Ganguly, J. 1. -this writ petition has been filed by one organisation in the name and style of Bihar mahavidayalaya Shikshak Awam shikshketar Karamchari Kalyan mahasangh through its President and several other teachers of various colleges which have become constituent colleges of different universities. 2. The petitioners apprehended that their services may be terminated on the basis of the report of vigilance enquiry. 3. Apprehending such termination of services the petitioner filed this writ petition and obtained from this Court an order for maintenance of status quo on 21st June, 1995. 4. In the intervention petition filed in this proceeding by the Inspector general (Cabinet) Vigilance Department it has been stated that due to issuance of an order of status quo by this Hon ble Court on 21st June, 1995 the process for issuing order of termination of the services of the petitioners came to a halt. It is therefore clear that the apprehensions of the petitioners have a factual basis. 5. It is not in dispute that in this state various colleges attached to the universities were converted into constituent colleges in phases and in the fourth phase of such conversion about 36 of such colleges were converted into constituent colleges in different universities and by another notification three colleges were made constituent units of the different Universities. 6. Factually there is no dispute in the instant case that as a result of process of conversion of the affiliated colleges into the constituent colleges, agreements have been entered into. 7. The Bihar State Universities act, 1976 defines the constituent colleges and affiliated colleges separately. The affiliated colleges defined under Sec.2 (c) of the Bihar Universities Act, 1976 (here in after referred to as the said Act) means educational institution having received privileges of the University according to the provisions of this Act and University statutes relating thereto. Sec.2 (c) of the Act is set out below:- 2. (c):- "affiliated college" means educational institution having received privileges of the University according to the provisions of this Act and University statutes relating thereto; constituent College has been defined under Sec.2 (i) of the said act. Sec.2 (i) is set out below:- 2 (i) "constituent College" means a teaching institution maintained or controlled by the University. (c):- "affiliated college" means educational institution having received privileges of the University according to the provisions of this Act and University statutes relating thereto; constituent College has been defined under Sec.2 (i) of the said act. Sec.2 (i) is set out below:- 2 (i) "constituent College" means a teaching institution maintained or controlled by the University. The said Act deals with constituent colleges and affiliated colleges differently and the scheme of the said Act also suggests that those colleges are different in many respects. 8. Section 4 of the said Act, provides for the purpose and powers of the University. Sec.4 (14) of the Act is relevant for our purpose and is set out below:- Section 4 (14): "to enter into agreement with other bodies and persons for promoting the purposes of this Act and to assume the management of any institution under them and to take over its assets and liabilities: provided that before entering into such an agreement the University shall obtain the sanction of the State Government, or shall do so upon receiving such a proposal from the State Government: provided further that if at any time any irregularity is found in determination and payment of any pay, special pay or allowances, or in any appointment in an institution taken over by the University in its management under such an agreement, than, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act, the university shall have the powers to take decisions after reviewing it and such a decision shall be final and binding. 9 In the course of hearing it was not disputed by the learned Counsel appearing for the State that agreements were entered into between the Governing body of the College and the respective University and thereafter the conversion of the affiliated colleges into constituent ones were brought about. 10. Relying on the aforesaid uncontroverted facts situation, learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that where an affiliated college was converted into a constituent college on the basis of an agreement which has been entered into in accordance with the provisions of Sec.4 (14) of the said act, it is no longer open to the State government to raise any controversy about the irregularities in the matter of appointment of the concerned petitioners. Learned Counsel has further submitted that the University alone is empowered under Sec.4 (14) of the said Act to take a decision and such a decision has statutory finality under sub-section (14) of Sec.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the said statutory finality in sub-section (14) of Sec.4 cannot be called in question by the State Government in exercise of its power under Sec.35 of the Act. 11. Learned Counsel further submitted that from a reading of Sec.35 of the said Act, it is clear that the said section 35 suffered an amendment by amending Act 3 of 1990. After commencement of the said amending Act in the year 1990, it is provided that no financial liabilities in regard to teaching or non-teaching staff shall be created without prior approval of the State government. The said injunction imposed by the amending provisions, it has been argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, cannot be made applicable in relation to a college which has become constituent unit of a university in 1986, inasmuch as, in the very process of conversion of an affiliated college into a constituent one the agreement which has to be entered into under Sec.4 (14) of the said act, has to be with the approval and sanction of the State Government. Therefore, with the compliance of the provisions of Sec.4 (14) of the said act, the provisions of Sec.35 including its amendments are taken care of. 12. While considering the aforesaid submission, this Court is of the view that on a proper and harmonious construction of Sec.4 (14) and Section 35 of the Act read with the amendment, it is clear that the Government control on creation of teaching and non-teaching posts has been observed at the stage of entering into the agreement in 1986 under Sec.4 (14) of the Act. Sub-section (14) of Sec.4 of the said Act provides a complete code and a non-obstante clause empowers the university to take decision in matters of pay, allowances and appointment in an institution which has been taken over by the University. 13. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has further stated that Section 57 (A) of the said Act is also not attracted, inasmuch as, all the provisions of Sec.57 (A) of the said act apply to affiliated Colleges. Since the petitioners have become,teachers of constituent college, the said provisions do not apply. 14. 13. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has further stated that Section 57 (A) of the said Act is also not attracted, inasmuch as, all the provisions of Sec.57 (A) of the said act apply to affiliated Colleges. Since the petitioners have become,teachers of constituent college, the said provisions do not apply. 14. The provisions of Sec.57 of the said Act have been incorporated by amending Act 3 of 1990 and has not been given any retrospective effect. 15. It is not in dispute that the provisions for appointment of teachers and officers in constituent colleges shall be controlled by the Bihar State Universities (Constituent College) Service commission, but the same will also apply to the appointment which will be made in accordance with the said provisions after the said provisions have came into effect. 16. Here factually it is not in dispute that the petitioners and the persons similarly placed like the petitioners have been appointed to the various colleges which have now become constituent units prior to coming into effect of the said amending Act. The said amending Act, namely Act 3 of 1990, in my view, does not apply to the case of appointment of the present petitioners. Apart from that the learned Counsel for the petitioners contended, and in my view rightly, that provisions of Section 57 of the said Act are subject to the provisions of this Act. Therefore the application of Sec.57 is subject to section 4 (14) of the said Act. 17. Learned Counsel further submitted that the statute which has been approved by the Chancellor, namely, statute for Regularisation of the Services of purely Temporary Lecturers appointed on or before 28th February, 1982 cannot be pressed into services in justification of the termination of the services of the petitioners. 18. This Court is of the opinion that the said statute has been framed under Sec.5 (2) of the Bihar Inter university Board Act, 1981, and as such the same is not relevant for the purposes of the powers of the University under Sec.4 (14) of the said Act. 19. 18. This Court is of the opinion that the said statute has been framed under Sec.5 (2) of the Bihar Inter university Board Act, 1981, and as such the same is not relevant for the purposes of the powers of the University under Sec.4 (14) of the said Act. 19. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that in the instant case, proceedings have been taken before the House Committee about the irregularity of the appointment of the petitioners and similarly placed persons, but such deliberations of the House Committee is not at all relevant for the purpose of deciding the irregularities and otherwise of the appointment of the petitioners. This Court is of the opinion that the learned counsel is quite right in his submissions that the House Committee of the legislature cannot and does not have any statutory authority, to decide the regularity or otherwise of the appointment of the petitioners. Therefore, the said deliberations of the house Committee are of no consequence for deciding the points at issue. However, in this case the recommendations of the House committee are in favour of regularisation of the appointment" of the petitioners, but this Court is not concerned with the same. 20. Learned Counsel further submitted that the Vigilance enquiry which has been constituted arising out of appointment of the petitioners is also not relevant for deciding the question. This Court is also of the opinion that any enquiry which might have been instituted for investigation in respect to the commission of criminal offence may continue, but the authorities conducting the investigation have no statutory power to issue orders for determination of the regularity of the appointment of the petitioners. 21. In this connection, an affidavit filed by Mr. K. C. Saha, Secretary, department of Higher Education, government of Bihar has been placed before this Hon ble Court by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The said affidavit also refers to the report of the House Committee and also enquiry report of the Vigilance department. This Court has already held that the report of the House Committee or the enquiry of the Vigilance department has no relevance to the questions at issue. But in the affidavit filed by the State government, the material facts have not been denied, namely, that there has been statutory agreement in accordance with Sec.4 (14) of the said Act. This Court has already held that the report of the House Committee or the enquiry of the Vigilance department has no relevance to the questions at issue. But in the affidavit filed by the State government, the material facts have not been denied, namely, that there has been statutory agreement in accordance with Sec.4 (14) of the said Act. In absence of such denial, the Court has to proceed on the basis of the facts urged by the Counsel for the petitioner that such agreements do exist. 22. Learned Counsel for the State-Respondents, has however, submitted that there are five kinds of teachers of the colleges in question. Without specifying them either in the affidavit or in the argument, the State Counsel further submitted that only the colleges have been taken over, but the services of the teachers have not been taken over. This is merely an assertion from the bar. No such case has been made out in the affidavit of the State. Apart from that the said contention is not tenable in view of the admitted position that agreement as contemplated under section 4 (14) have been entered into. 23. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has referred to two documents, namely, Annexure-1 which is a communication from the Education department, Government of Bihar to the Vice-Chancellor of different universities relating to conversion of 36 affiliated colleges of Bihar into constituent colleges in the fourth phase. Emphasis has been laid by the Counsel for the State on the communication dated 16-12-1989 by the Principal secretary-cum-Commissioner, Department of Human Resources development to various Vice-Chancellors of the University about absorption/regularisation of the teachers appointed and working on the post created and recommended after 30th