JUDGMENT S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. In this case, petitioner no. 1 is the Association, whereas the rest of the petitioners are its members who were working as Laboratory Incharge. 2. This writ petition relates to regularisation/regular appointment of the members of the petitioners' Association, who were working as Laboratory Incharge on daily wage basis in one C.M. Science College, Darbhanga, a constituent College under the Respondent-L.N. Mithila University, Darbhanga (University for short). 3. The brief fact of the case shows that the State of Bihar by their decision dated 17th August, 1979 laid down the staffing pattern for one or other college. It was decided that 27 posts of Laboratory Incharge are required for such college which impart Under-graduate teaching and 51 posts of Laboratory Incharge in the college imparting Post Graduate teaching. In terms with the staffing pattern, the Respondent University published advertisement in different newspapers on 5th December, 1981 for appointment to the post of Laboratory Incharge in constituent Colleges in the then scale of Rs. 230-490. The petitioners being eligible for appointment against the post of Laboratory Incharge applied in pursuance of the said advertisement along with others. They were asked to appear in the interview on different dates in the month of August, 1963 by different letters issued in between 23rd July, 1983 and 13th August, 1983. The members of the petitioners' Association appeared in interview before the Selection Committee on 26th August, 1983 and others dates, wherein after they were selected and recommended for appointment. It appears that the Respondent University inspite of creation of posts in terms with the staffing pattern, on presumption that prior sanction of such posts is required in terms with Section 35 of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976, made a supplementary request to the State of Bihar for sanction of such posts vide their letter dated 28th January, 1983. Reminders were also given subsequently on 19th June, 1983. But no formal order of sanction was received then the orders of appointments were issued in favour of one or other selected candidates, including the members of the petitioners' Association on daily wage basis by order dated 24th September, 1983 and not in the regular scale of pay, as advertised. In the order of appointment dated 24th September, 1983, it was shown that they will be paid wages on daily rate @ Rs. 12.50 per day. In the order of appointment dated 24th September, 1983, it was shown that they will be paid wages on daily rate @ Rs. 12.50 per day. The question of sanction of posts remained pending with the Respondent and the University continued with the correspondence. One such letter was issued by the University to the State on 4th March, 1989 followed by reminder dated 1st July, 1989. The members of the petitioners' Association also filed representations before the Vice Chancellor of the University for regularisation of their services on 7th April 89 and similar recommendations were also made by the Principal of the College, in question. The State Govt. also took steps and asked the University to give details of information by letter dated 20th April 89 and the required information was given by the University on 23rd October, 1989. Ultimately, by Resolution dated 10th May, 1991, a policy decision was taken by the State of Bihar to regularise/approve the services of the employees appointed prior to 10th May, 1986 against the post falling within the staffing pattern, with further decision to adjust the surplus employees, if any, appointed prior to 10th May, 1986 against the future vacancy. It was also ordered to terminate the services of those appointed after 10th May, 1986. The Respondent-University regularised the services of one or other Laboratory Incharge, including that of one Md. Rizwan, who was regularised on 15th June, 1993. However, according to the University, his case is different than that of the members of the petitioners' Association, as Md. Rizwan was appointed against a post created by the Governing Body, whereas the members of the petitioners' Association were not appointed against the sanctioned posts. so far as the members of the petitioners' Association and others are concerned, the Respondent-University for their regular appointment continued to request the State of Bihar to create/sanction the posts of Laboratory Incharge even recently, which is apparent from letter dated 14th May, 1995 and noting of the Registrar of the University dated 21st December, 1995. However, without any decision/relating to sanction of posts and/or regular appointment of Laboratory Incharge like the members of the petitioners' Association and others, the Respondent-University again came out with one advertisment dated 10th April,1997 for appointment against the post of Laboratory Incharge in different constituent Colleges under the University. 4. However, without any decision/relating to sanction of posts and/or regular appointment of Laboratory Incharge like the members of the petitioners' Association and others, the Respondent-University again came out with one advertisment dated 10th April,1997 for appointment against the post of Laboratory Incharge in different constituent Colleges under the University. 4. The counsel for the Respondent-University placed reliance on an unreported decision of this Court in the case of Parsu Ram Mower & Others vs. State of Bihar and others in C.W.J.C. No. 4252 of 1995, disposed of on 19th February, 1997. He submitted that because of order aforesaid dated 19th February, 1997, the posts of Laboratory Incharge have been advertised to make regular appointment after following the procedure. 5. The question relating to sanction of posts in terms with Section 35 of the Universities Act, 1976 fell for consideration before a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Braj Kishore Singh vs. State of Bihar and others, reported in 1997(1) P.L.J.R. 509 . In the said case, the Full Bench held that if a College is made constituent, the posts sanctioned in terms with the staffing pattern stand created and sanctioned and for that no separate formal order under Section 35 of the Universities Act is required. 6. Accordingly, I hold that the posts already sanctioned by State Government in terms with its decision relating to staffing pattern made by order dated 17th August, 1979 require no further order of sanction/creation in terms with Section 35 of the Universities Act, 1976 and the Respondent-University can appoint any person against such post in accordance with law. 7. So far as the present case is concerned, as the posts were sanctioned by the State Government by virtue of staffing pattern by its decision dated 17th August, 1979 and stand sanctioned under Section 35 of the Universities Act in terms with the full Bench decision of this Court aforesaid, according to me, it was not required to obtain further order of creation/sanction from the Respondents-State and the letters issued by the University to that effect on different dates cannot be used against the members of the petitioners' Association. 8. Admittedly, the University advertised the posts in newspapers on 5th December, 1981 and after due-selection through Selection Committee of the University, the members of the petitioners' Association were provided with orders of appointment on 24th September, 1983. 8. Admittedly, the University advertised the posts in newspapers on 5th December, 1981 and after due-selection through Selection Committee of the University, the members of the petitioners' Association were provided with orders of appointment on 24th September, 1983. If on wrong presumption that the posts have not yet been created/ sanctioned by the State Government, the Respondent-University provided them with order of appointment on daily wage basis, such order cannot deprive the members of the petitioners' Association from their regular appointment, they having already faced the process of selection and undergone the test through a Selection Committee. If there is any irregularity in the matter of issuance of order of appointment, the petitioners having completed about 14 years of service, the Respondents cannot raise the question of legality at this stage, but to regularise their services, if necessary, by issuance of formal order of regular appointment by the order of the appropriate appointing authority. 9. So far as the order passed by this Court dated 19th February, 1997 in the case of Parsu Ram Mower and others (supra) is concerned, this Court by the said order has not prohibited the Respondents to regularise/make regular appointment of a person who was already in the services under the University appointed after following the procedure of appointment. The Court only directed to fill up the sanctioned posts by normal procedure consistent with Article 16 of the Constitution of India. 10. As in the case of members of the petitioners' Association, such procedure consistent under Article 16 of the Constitution of India has already been followed, no further repetition of such procedure is required at this stage and the members of the petitioners' Association are not liable to compete again for selection with outsiders, including those who were not eligible and/or could not be selected when the earlier advertisement was issued on 5th December, 1981 and selection took place in the month of August, 1983. The order passed in the case of Parsu Ram Mower and others in C.W.J.C. No. 4252 of 1995 is required to be followed with respect to those who have not yet been taken in the service under the University after following the procedure under Article 16 of the Constitution of India. 11. The order passed in the case of Parsu Ram Mower and others in C.W.J.C. No. 4252 of 1995 is required to be followed with respect to those who have not yet been taken in the service under the University after following the procedure under Article 16 of the Constitution of India. 11. Accordingly, the Respondents are directed to provide the petitioners with order of regular appointment immediately and such order should be issued within a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this judgment. The petitioners will get the regular scale of pay from the date such regular order of appointment is issued, but the past service/experience would be counted for purpose like fixation of pay etc. 12. However, this order will not stand in the way of the Respondents to reject the claim of anyone or other person who may be found not fit for regular appointment, either because of their ineligibility and/or on the basis of their past performance. 13. The writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions. However, on the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order, as to costs.