Judgment S.N.Jha, J. 1. The dispute in this writ petition relates to appointment on the post of Principal, S.N.S. College, Hajipur (briefly, the College), the petitioner seeks quashing of the letter no. B/2928 dated 7.9.2000 of the Registrar, B.R. Ambedkar Bihar University (briefly, the University) communicating the decision of the Syndicate to review the appointment of the petitioner as Principal of the College made on 18.4.2000, consider the claim of respondent no. 8 Arbind Kumar Singh for appointment to the post, failing which the action of the Governing Body appointing the petitioner on the post shall be annulled unilaterally. 2. The Bihar College Service Commission (briefly the Commission) issued series of advertisements towards the end of 1998. Advt. No. 102/98 whereof related to the post of Principal of the College i.e. S.N.S. College, Hajipur. The petitioner and respondent no. 8 amongst others applied for the post for which the interview was held on 2.11.99. By letter No. 1253 dated 30.11.99 the Commission sent its recommendation to the Secretary of the Governing Body of the College. The petitioner figured as the second nominee while respondent no. 8 was first nominee. By letter No. 1254 dated 30.11.99 the petitioner was also individually informed about the recommendation. Feeling aggrieved by the recommendation as the second nominee, he made representation before the Governing Body. While highlighting his own qualification he pointed out that respondent no. 8 was not even eligible for appointment to the post of Principal. The Governing Body by letter dated 5.4.2000 called upon both, respondent no. 8 as well as the petitioner, to produce documents to substantiate their respective claim for appointment. Finally, after considering their cases on 18.4.2000 it resolved to appoint the petitioner in preference to respondent no. 8. In the light of the said resolution appointment letter was issued to the petitioner on 2.7.2000 pursuant to which he joined the post on 5.7.2000. On 7.7.2000 the Governing Body informed the Commission about its decision to appoint the second nominee i.e. the petitioner and the reasons for preferring him to respondent no. 8. Respondent no. 8 filed representation before the Pro-Vice Chancellor of the University. On 22.5.2000 and again on 23.6.2000 and 4.7.2000, the Deputy Registrar of the University asked the Governing Body to submit its case as to how the second nominee was appointed on the post rejecting the claim of the first nominee i.e. the respondent no. 8. Respondent no. 8 filed representation before the Pro-Vice Chancellor of the University. On 22.5.2000 and again on 23.6.2000 and 4.7.2000, the Deputy Registrar of the University asked the Governing Body to submit its case as to how the second nominee was appointed on the post rejecting the claim of the first nominee i.e. the respondent no. 8. The Governing Body submitted its explanation on 14.7.2000. The explanation apparently did not find favour, it is said, under the influence of respondent no. 8 who has high connections, and by the impugned communication dated 7.9.2000 the University asked the Governing Body to consider the matter again, as stated at the outset. 3. The case of the petitioner, as set out in the writ petition and the rejoinder affidavits, briefly stated, is as follows. He did his M.Sc. in Zoology from the then Bihar University (now B.R. Ambedkar Bihar University) securing 58% marks in 1983. He was appointed on the first post of Lecturer in Zoology in MP. College, Mohania on 21.4.86 after observing necessary formalities of selection. The said College was duly affiliated both in Science arid Arts subjects with the then Magadh University (now Veer Kunwar Singh University). The post in question was also duly sanctioned by the State Government within six months of the appointment, and as such, he would be deemed to be in continuous employment from 21.4.86, and thus eligible for appointment on the post of Principal of a Degree College. 4. At this stage it is relevant to mention here that the minimum qualifications for appointment on the post of Principal in an affiliated/Degree College, as set out in the advertisement was "first or high second class Masters degree or equivalent degree of a foreign University with consistently good academic record and not less than 12 years teaching experience at least as Lecturer in the Degree College/University Department". The requirement as to first class/high second class Masters degree was relaxable in case of a teacher who had obtained Ph. D. degree and also successfully guided research work leading to the award of Doctorate degree or had published considerable research work in the standard journal beyond what he did for the Doctorate degree. However this relaxation was available to only such teachers who were appointed prior to 1977. 5. According to the petitioner, while he possessed the requisite qualifications having passed M.Sc. However this relaxation was available to only such teachers who were appointed prior to 1977. 5. According to the petitioner, while he possessed the requisite qualifications having passed M.Sc. examination with 58% marks and completed more than 12 years continuous service in affiliated/Degree College, respondent no. 8 did neither possess the requisite qualifications for appointment as lecturer since he had secured only 52.75% marks in the M.Sc. examination in 1985 as against the required 55% marks for such appointment, nor had 12 years teaching experience as lecturer in Degree College and was thus not eligible for appointment. It may be mentioned here that respondent no. 8 claims to be working in the College in question i.e. S.N.S. College, Hajipur as Lecturer in Zoology since 1.7.85; according to the petitioner, however, the College was granted affiliation in the science subjects of the Degree (Pass) level only in 1990 vide Letter no. 110 dated 13.2.90 of Additional Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar vide Annexure 6 to the writ petition, and thus he (respondent no. 8) could at best claim only 8 years teaching experience on the date of advertisement. 6. The further case of the petitioner is that Section 57A of the Bihar State Universities Act 1976 contemplates appointment only on the recommendation of the College Service Commission in affiliated Colleges and since there was no such recommendation of the Commission in favour of respondent no. 8 for his appointment as Lecturer in the College, his appointment, made by the Governing Body, must be treated to have lapsed after six months in terms of Section 2(11) of the Bihar College Service Commission Act, 1976. In fact, it is said, that the second post of Lecturer in Zoology on which he claims appointment has till date not been sanctioned by the State Government in terms of Section 35 of the Universities Act. 7. In the rejoinder affidavit, the petitioner has stated that, as a matter of fact, respondent no. 8 was shown as a serving Laboratory Incharge in the Department of Chemistry in R.N. College, Hajipur since 13.7.82, vide Annexure 19 to the affidavit, by which the names of the serving non-teaching employees of R.N. College, Hajipur as per new staffing pattern were forwarded to the University for approval on 30.8.94. 8 was shown as a serving Laboratory Incharge in the Department of Chemistry in R.N. College, Hajipur since 13.7.82, vide Annexure 19 to the affidavit, by which the names of the serving non-teaching employees of R.N. College, Hajipur as per new staffing pattern were forwarded to the University for approval on 30.8.94. It was highlighted in course of hearing that the said list which was originally sent under the signature of none else than the father of respondent no. 8 himself, Prof. Vishwanath Prasad Singh as the Principal of that College, was endorsed by the successor Professor Incharge of R.N College Shri S.P. Shrivastava on 9.5.95, after Prof. Vishwanth Prasad Singh was removed from the post of Principal/Professor Incharge, and by the regular Principal Shri A. Samad on 4.10.96 and, again, by Shri Bimlendu Kumar Sinha, the then Professor Incharge of the College on 12.4.98. It was stated that the saicl Bimlendu Kumar Sinha is the same person, who as the University Representative objected to the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Principal in course of deliberation of the Governing Body on 18.4.2000, even though he was signatory to the List wherein respondent no. 8 was shown as Laboratory Incharge in another College i.e. R. N. College since 13.7.82. 8. The case of the petitioner that respondent no. 8 had secured only 52.75% marks in the M.Sc. examination in the year 1985 is not denied by him. According to the respondent, however, as per the laid down qualification at the relevant time, which required the candidates to possess at least high second class i.e. 52.5% marks, he could not be regarded as ineligible and, in any view, after the eligibility was raised to 55% by the Chancellor with effect from 9.9.88, he improved his qualification by passing the M.Sc. (Zoology) examination with 65% marks from A.N. College, Patna in the year 1994, after prosecuting his studies as a regular student during 1987-89 session with necessary permission of the Principals of the two Colleges i.e. S.N.S. College, Hajipur where he was working as Lecturer since 1.7.85 and A.N.College, Patna where he studied the course. His eligibility on the basis of M.Sc. qualification thus cannot be disputed. As regards the teaching experience, the case of respondent no. 8 is that by Letter no. His eligibility on the basis of M.Sc. qualification thus cannot be disputed. As regards the teaching experience, the case of respondent no. 8 is that by Letter no. 490 dated 13.12.85 of the Special Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, the State Government had granted temporary affiliation for two sessions from 1985-86. It was submitted in course of hearing by the counsel that what is essential is that the College should be affiliated and the person concerned should have actual teaching experience. The College having been granted affiliation by letter dated 13.12.85 and the petitioner having been actually working in the College since 1.7.85, he must be said to have the requisite teaching experience of 12 years. As regards the inclusion of his name in the aforesaid list of non-teaching employees showing respondent no. 8 as Laboratory Incharge in the Department of Chemistry in R.N. College, Hajipur, the case of the post of Laboratory Incharge in that College nor he ever drew salary of the post from there. As regards the validity of the decision of the Governing Body to appoint the petitioner in preference to respondent no. 8, the case of the respondent is that being the first nominee he had a right to be appointed in terms of the provisions of Section 58(3) of the Universities Act as held by a Division Bench of this Court in Chandra Bhushan Prasad Singh V/s. Chancellor, Bihar University, 1979 BBCJ 384 . 9. While dealing with the case of respondent no. 8 about his improving the qualification in the year 1994 it was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the alleged permission granted by the Principal of S.N.S. College, Hajipur or A.N. College, Patna has no value in the eye of law. The respondent no. 8 claiming to be working Lecturer on whole time basis, he was required to take permission of the Governing Body of S.N.S. College and the Principal was not competent to grant such permission. As a matter of fact, according to the petitioner, no such permission was granted, the fact is that by playing fraud respondent no. 8 managed to take admission in A.N. College, Patna, studied the course as regular student for two years and then appeared at the examination. As a matter of fact, according to the petitioner, no such permission was granted, the fact is that by playing fraud respondent no. 8 managed to take admission in A.N. College, Patna, studied the course as regular student for two years and then appeared at the examination. It was pointed out that the laws of the University permit the students to appear at the next following examination to improve his performance in particular papers not exceeding three, and that also in specified subjects. Zoology is not a specified subject and, in any view, it was not open to the respondent to appear in the whole examination again and that too after years. Dealing with this branch of petitioners case, in fairness to respondent no. 8, it may be mentioned here itself that according to his counsel the provisions referred to by the petitioners counsel relates to examination to be held by the same University and they have no relevance in a case where the candidate appears at an equivalent examination from another University as in the present case. 10. With respect to the respondents case that the teaching experience is to be reckoned from the date of affiliation of the Degree College irrespective of whether the affiliation relates to the particular subject, counsel for the petitioner submitted that by letter dated 13.12.85 (supra) affiliation was granted only in B.A. (Pass) i.e. Arts subjects, and so far as science subjects are concerned, such affiliation was granted only on 15.2.90 vide Annexure 6. There being no affiliation in science subjects and no teaching in those subjects, respondent no. 8 cannot claim teaching experience from 1985. It was submitted that the point at issue is covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Dr. Rajni Bala Agrawal Versus L.N. Mithila University, 1999(2) BLJR 1568 approving the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in 1992(1) PLJR 596. As regards the respondents case that he was never appointed on the post of Laboratory Incharge in R.N. College, it was submitted that the Court should order enquiry as to the circumstances in which his name was forwarded to the University for approval as late as in 1994 and even as recently as in 1998. 11. l do not wish to go into the circumstances in which respondent no. 11. l do not wish to go into the circumstances in which respondent no. 8 was permitted to take admission as regular student in A.N. College, Patna during session 1987-89 allegedly to overcome the eligibility bar created by the Statutes framed by the Chancellor dated 9.9.88 though, prima facie, it seems very doubtful and suspicious that on application submitted by respondent no. 8 on 17.3.89 vide Annexure B, the Principal of the College would grant such permission by simply scribing "swikrit" without taking the Governing Body in confidence and getting its concurrence. Prima facie, being regular and wholetime Lecturer, as claimed by him, it is not understandable as lo how while continuing to perform his duties as Lecturer in S.N.S. College, Hajipur, he could prosecute his studies as regular student in A.N. College at Patna for two years leading to the award of the degree in the year 1994. However it is not necessary for deciding the case to record any concluding finding on this issue. 12. The question of eligibility of respondent no. 8 for appointment as Principal or Lecturer on the basis of his M.Sc. qualification apart, l am satisfied that he did not possess 12 years teaching experience as required of him in terms of the Statutes as well as the advertisement itself. The letter of the State Government dated 15.2.90 (supra) leaves no room for doubt that the affiliation for B.Sc. (Pass) degree level course was accorded by the Government only in 1990. To the same effect is the affidavit of the Governing Body of the College. If the affiliation granted by the State Government vide letter dated 13.12.85 (supra), relied upon by the respondent related to the only Arts subjects of the degree course, there being no teaching in science subjects in the eye of law, the College cannot be treated as affiliated with respect to science subjects prior to 1990 and the respondent cannot claim teaching experience as Lecturer in Zoology subject prior to that. 13. l am totally unable to appreciate as to how name of respondent no. 8 was shown in the list of non-teaching employees of another College during the same period. Whether respondent no. 13. l am totally unable to appreciate as to how name of respondent no. 8 was shown in the list of non-teaching employees of another College during the same period. Whether respondent no. 8 drew his salary on the post of Laboratory Incharge, R.N. College, Hajipur or not, this much is clear that attempt was made to get his service on the post approved by the State Government as per the staffing pattern. Prima facie, he appears to have been sailing in two boats hoping that he would be able to sail through in either of them. Whatever be the fact, this certainly creates serious doubt regarding the bonafide of his claim. 14. The submission of the counsel for the respondent that recommendation of the Commission was binding on the Governing Body cannot be accepted. Section 57A(1) empowers the Governing Body of affiliated colleges (not maintained by the State Government) to appoint, dismiss etc. teachers (which term includes Principal) in consultation with the College Service Commission in the manner prescribed by the Statutes. The Commission is enjoined by Sub-section (2) of Section 57A to give its consent/recommendation in the appointment/dismissal etc. of teachers of affiliated colleges till they become constituent colleges. Section 2(9) of the Bihar College Service Commission Act empowers College Service Commission to make recommendation for appointment to the post of teacher; it provides that the Commission shall recommend for every post of teacher names of two persons arranged "in order of preference and considered by the Commission to be the best qualified". The recommendation of the Commission is mere opinion that so and so are best qualified for the post in order of preference. The recommendation, generally speaking, cannot be said to be binding unless the context or words of the Statutes suggest otherwise. There is nothing in the Statuteeither in the Bihar College Service Commission Act or Bihar State Universities Actto suggest that the recommendation of the Commission is binding. The decision in Chandra Bhushan Prasad Singh V/s. Chancellor (supra) was rendered in entirely different context. In that case the Governing Body had appointed the second nominee without making reference to the Chancellor seeking approval as required under section 58(3) (b) of the Universities Act as it stood at the relevant time. The Chancellor on representation by the first nominee reversed the decision of the Governing Body. In that case the Governing Body had appointed the second nominee without making reference to the Chancellor seeking approval as required under section 58(3) (b) of the Universities Act as it stood at the relevant time. The Chancellor on representation by the first nominee reversed the decision of the Governing Body. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that since no reference was made by the Governing Body to the Chancellor the latter could not have upturned the decision. In view of the provisions of Section 58 (3) (b) as it stood then, the Court held that in a case where the recommendation of the Commission is not accepted by the Governing Body, the Governing Body was required to submit the case to the Chancellor for final orders. That having not been done the Chancellor was competent to entertain the representation of the first nominee and reverse the decision of the Governing Body. The ratio of the decision thus is that in case where the Governing Body decides to differ from the recommendation of the Commission, reference is to be made to the Chancellor seeking his approval. The decision does not lay down that the Governing Body cannot differ. As a matter of fact, the very provision that in the case of proposed difference reference had to be made to the Chancellor implies that the Governing Body is competent to differ from the Commission. 15. It is noteworthy that Section 58, in context of which the above decision was rendered, now relates to appointment in constituent colleges, and the provisions of Sub-section 3(b) which now corresponds to Sub-section (3) enjoins upon the Vice Chancellor, if he does not accept the recommendation of the Commission, to record his reasons in writing and forward the case for orders to the Chancellor whose decision is final and binding. There is no such corresponding provision relating to appointment in affiliated colleges and therefore the matter has to be considered on general principles. l have already made my comments above in that regard. 16. Adverting to the instant case, from perusal of the minutes of the proceeding of the Governing Body dated 18.4.2000, contained in Annexure 13, l am satisfied that the Governing Body after due application of mind and consideration of materials and after giving opportunity of hearing to both respondent no. l have already made my comments above in that regard. 16. Adverting to the instant case, from perusal of the minutes of the proceeding of the Governing Body dated 18.4.2000, contained in Annexure 13, l am satisfied that the Governing Body after due application of mind and consideration of materials and after giving opportunity of hearing to both respondent no. 8 and the petitioner, took a conscious decision to prefer the petitioner to respondent no. 8 and, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the decision of the Governing Body does not seem to be erroneous or artbitrary at all. As the Governing Body was fully competent to differ from the Commission and such difference was based on cogent grounds, the University committed error in directing it to review appointment of the petitioner and, as a matter of fact, in effect and substance, to appoint respondent no. 8 on the post failing which the resolution appointing the petitioner will be "unilaterally annulled". The direction of the University contained in letter dated 7.9.2000 therefore cannot be sustained. 17. Before l conclude, in fairness to respondent no. 8 l must refer to two more decisions cited by his counsel, in the cases of D. Stephen Joseph V/s. Union of lndia, J.T. (1997) 5 SC 126, and Anil Kumar Gupta V/s. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, (2000) 1 SCC 128 . In the former case, the Supreme Court laid down that the past practice in the matter of recruitment should not be discarded if it was in conformity with the rules. In the latter case, the point for consideration was whether the experience gained before attaining the requisite qualification could be taken into account. As per the advertisement, the candidates were required to possess degree in Civil Engineering and two years professional experience. During selection process weightage for additional experience, beyond two years, was given. While upholding the same the Court held that as the prescription of two years professional experience was not linked with the degree qualification, professional experience gained before acquisition of the Degree qualification could be counted. It would appear that the decisions were rendered on its own factsin the context of relevant rules and terms of advertisement and have no relevance in the present case. 18. It would appear that the decisions were rendered on its own factsin the context of relevant rules and terms of advertisement and have no relevance in the present case. 18. In the result, the impugned communication of the University dated 7.9.2000, contained in Annexure 18, is quashed and this writ petition is allowed accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.