Judgment 1. This application has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 10.5.2004 (Annexure-12) whereby the Chancellor of the University has informed the Vice-Chancellor of the Jai Prakash University that the Chancellor has approved the decision of the Vice-Chancellor in refusing to accept the recommendation of the Bihar State University (Constituent Colleges) Service Commission for appointment of the petitioner as Finance Officer of Jai Prakash. University. Further prayer made by the petitioner is to quash the order dated 10th March, 2004 as communicated to the petitioner vide Memo dated 18.3.2004 (Annexure-19) whereby the review application filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. The petitioner further prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent Jai Prakash University to appoint the petitioner to the post of Finance Officer. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details facts giving rise to the present application are that the Bihar State University (Constituent Colleges) Service Commission, hereinafter referred to as the Commission invited applications for appointment to the post of Finance Officer of Jai Prakash University. In pursuance of the said advertisement the petitioner offered his candidature. The Professor-in-charge of the Rajendra College, Chapra where the petitioner was working and the Registrar of the Jai Prakash University gave their No Objection for his appointment as Finance Officer. The Commission made recommendation for appointment of the petitioner to the post of Finance Officer in the Jai Prakash University, hereinafter referred to as the University. The Commission made recommendation for appointment of the petitioner to the post of Finance Officer in the Jai Prakash University, hereinafter referred to as the University. The matter of appointment of the petitioner was placed in the meeting of the Syndicate of the University held on 11.1.2002 and the Vice-Chancellor of the University was authorised to take decision. It seems that the Vice-Chancellor of the University took decision not to appoint the petitioner and to refuse to accept the recommendation of the Commission and accordingly wrote to the Chancellor of the University for its approval as contemplated under section 58(3) of the Bihar State Universities Act. The Chancellor accorded the approval to the decision of the Vice- Chancellor in refusing to accept the recommendation of the Commission and the Chancellor Secretariat by letter dated 10.5.2002 (Annexure-12) informed the University in this regard. The Chancellor accorded the approval to the decision of the Vice- Chancellor in refusing to accept the recommendation of the Commission and the Chancellor Secretariat by letter dated 10.5.2002 (Annexure-12) informed the University in this regard. Thereafter, it seems that the petitioner filed review application before the Chancellor which has been rejected by the impugned order. 3. Mr. Yugal Kishore, appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that once the respondent University and the Principal of the College having given No Objection to the appointment of the petitioner as Finance Officer, later on they cannot turn their head and deny appointment to the petitioner and their action is hit by the principle of promissory estoppel. He further points out that the petitioner was denied appointment on the basis of an enquiry said to have been conducted by the Vice- Chancellor of the University in which he was not given any opportunity and this also vitiates the action of the University. 4. Having appreciated the submission of Mr, Kishore, I do not find any substance in the same. Section 58 of the Bihar State Universities Act, inter-alia, provides for appointment of teachers and officers of the University, Section 58(3) thereof confers power on the Vice-Chancellor not to accept the recommendation made by the Commission for reasons to be recorded in writing and is required to forward the case for order of the Chancellor and the decision taken by the Chancellor in the matter has been made final and binding. Section 58(3) of the Act reads as follows: "58 (3). If the Vice-Chancellor does not accept the recommendation made by the Commission, it shall record its reasons in writing and forward the case for order to the Chancellor and the order of the Chancellor shall be final and binding." 5. The Vice-Chancellor of the Respondent University did not accept the recommendation of the Commission and after recording reasons forwarded it to the Chancellor. The Chancellor accepted the recommendation of the Vice-Chancellor in refusing to make appointment of the petitioner as Finance Officer of the University. Thereafter, a review application was filed and it has also been dismissed. It is well settled that mere recommendation by the Commission does not vest right of appointment. The Chancellor accepted the recommendation of the Vice-Chancellor in refusing to make appointment of the petitioner as Finance Officer of the University. Thereafter, a review application was filed and it has also been dismissed. It is well settled that mere recommendation by the Commission does not vest right of appointment. Here in the present case section 58(3) of the Act has specifically provided that the Vice-Chancellor in a given case may not accept the recommendation of the Commission but before doing so, he is required to assign reason and seek approval of the Chancellor. The Vice-Chancellor has assigned reason and sought approval of the Chancellor which has been accorded. Here, the principle of promissory estoppel as contended by Mr. Kishore is not attracted remotely. The College or the University where the petitioner was working had given No Objection to his appointment which does not mean that in every contingency the petitioner has to be appointed. Finding good and sufficient reasons, the Vice-Chancellor has decided not to make appointment of the petitioner, communicated the same to the Chancellor and after its approval, the petitioner has been denied appointment. 6. The grievance of the petitioner of not providing any opportunity before taking decision is totally misconceived. The nature of enquiry is not in regard to the petitioners vested right but in regard to his appointment. In such enquiry no opportunity was required to be given. 7. In the result, I do not find any merit in this application. It is dismissed in limine.