Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. Both these writ applications since are inter-connected on the question of facts and law, the same have been heard together and are being disposed of by this order. 3. It appears that on the basis of the requisition sent by the governing body of Vidya Nand Mithila Sanskrit College, Sankatmochan Dham, Darbhanga (hereinafter to be referred to as "College") to the Bihar College Service Commission (hereinafter to be referred to as "Commission") to advertise the post of Lecturer in the Department of English, the Commission issued Advertisement No. 850/94. The Commission after completion of the formalities sent its recommendation to the governing body of the College in question recommending Petitioner Dhairya Nath Choudhary in C.W.J.C. No. 4053 of 2000 as first nominee, whereas Petitioner Hemant Kumar Thakur in C.W.J.C. No. 3875 of 2000 was recommended as second nominee. 4. The grievance of Petitioner Dhairya Nath Choudhary in C.W.J.C. No. 4053 of 2000 is that though he is working continuously on the post of Lecturer in the Department of English in the College in question, the governing body is not taking steps for approval of his appointment by the University on the basis of the recommendation/ concurrence of the Commission dated 11.5.2000. 5. The grievance of Petitioner Hemant Kumar Thakur in C.W.J.C. No. 3875 of 2000 is that since he has good academic career than the writ petitioner Dhairya Nath Choudhary in C.W.J.C. No. 4053 of 2000 his name could have been recommended by the Commission as first nominee and, accordingly, the governing body should have appointed him on the post of Lecturer ignoring the claim of the first nominee. 6. Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner (Dhairya Nath Choudhary), submitted that since the petitioner was the first nominee as per the recommendation of the Commission, it was binding upon the governing body of the College to appoint him on the post of Lecturer in English with the approval of the University. It is further submitted that the petitioner was fully qualified for the post of Lecturer in English, as he has past teaching experience in the subject in question, and, therefore, the mandate of the Commission would not have been ignored by the governing body of the College. 7. Mr. Ganesh Pd. It is further submitted that the petitioner was fully qualified for the post of Lecturer in English, as he has past teaching experience in the subject in question, and, therefore, the mandate of the Commission would not have been ignored by the governing body of the College. 7. Mr. Ganesh Pd. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner (Hemant Kumar Thakur), on the contrary, submitted that the petitioner since had secured more than 55% marks, which is the minimum criteria, he could have been preferred over the petitioner Dhairya Nath Choudhary, as he had less than 55% marks, and, in that view of the matter, he should have been appointed as Lecturer in English by the governing body of the College ignoring the recommendation of the Commission, as referred to above. 8. Petitioner Dhairya Nath Choudhary has also been made respondent no. 6 in C.W.J.C. No. 3875 of 2000 filed by Petitioner Hemant Kumar Thakur. 9. At the time of hearing of these matters, Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned counsel for Petitioner Dhairya Nath Choudhary, had raised preliminary objection about maintainability of C.W.J.C. No. 3875 of 2000 filed by petitioner Hemant Kumar Thakur on the ground that the mark-sheet of Petitioner Hemant Kumar Thakur of Intermediate Science appears to be forged one and at the same time, there appears to be certain interpolations, so far the name of this petitioner is concerned in the degree he obtained from L.N. Mithila University, as contained in annexures R/6 and R/1/6, respectively, which have been brought on record by way of rejoinder. 10. Mr. Ganesh Pd. Singh, learned counsel for Petitioner Hemant Kumar Thakur, however, tried to impress upon the Court that neither there was any forgery committed by the petitioner (Hemant Kumar Thakur) in his mark-sheet of Intermediate Science nor there is any interpolation or discrepancy in his name in the degree, which he obtained from LN. Mithila University and the Court, therefore, need not enter into jugglery of words nor it should place reliance on such submission as petitioner Hemant Kumar Thakurs case was also considered by the Commission on merit and he was recommended as second nominee. Learned counsel submitted that this Court in its writ jurisdiction now should not enter into these questions when finally Petitioner Hemant Kumar Thakur has been found as one of the eligible candidates for the post of Lecturer in English by the Commission. 11. Learned counsel submitted that this Court in its writ jurisdiction now should not enter into these questions when finally Petitioner Hemant Kumar Thakur has been found as one of the eligible candidates for the post of Lecturer in English by the Commission. 11. It is not in dispute that Petitioner Dhairya Nath Choudhary is the first nominee as per the concurrence/recommendation of the Commission, as referred to above, for the post of Lecturer in English, whereas Petitioner Hemant Kumar Thakur is the second nominee. It is also not in dispute that till date the governing body has not acted upon the recommendation/ concurrence of the Commission and till date Petitioner Dhairya Nath Choudhary is continuing as Lecturer in English in the College in question. 12. Necessary counter affidavits have been filed by the Commission, the University and governing body of the College in question not disputing the basic question raised in these writ applications. However, Mr. Yugal Kishore, learned counsel for the Commission, submitted that the life of the recommendation since is for one year, by now it has lapsed by virtue of the provisions of sub-section (9) of Sec.2 of the Bihar College Service Commission Act, 1976 (hereinafter to be referred to as "Act"). Counsel for the petitioners submitted that both these writ applications were filed much prior to expiry of the period of one year from the date of recommendation of the Commission. In this view of the matter, the question of the recommendation does not arise. 13. The question now arises on the basis of the facts, as enumerated above, as to whether the governing body of an affiliated college would be justified in not making the appointment according to the recommendation made by the Commission and as to whether the governing body of an affiliated college can appoint the second nominee ignoring the recommendation of the Commission. 14. The question, which has arisen in these cases, is no more res Integra as the same has been settled by the Apex Court and this Court by various judgments. 15. In case of Jatindra Kumar and Others vs. State of Punjab and Others [AIR (1984 ?) Supreme Court 1850], the Apex Court held that appointment is to be made strictly adhering to the order of merit as recommended by the Commission. 15. In case of Jatindra Kumar and Others vs. State of Punjab and Others [AIR (1984 ?) Supreme Court 1850], the Apex Court held that appointment is to be made strictly adhering to the order of merit as recommended by the Commission. Again in the case of State of Bihar vs. Kaushal Kishore Singh [1998(9) Supreme Court Cases 104:1999(1) Patna Law Journal Reports (Supreme Court)5] the Apex Court held that when a Commission or Board selects the candidates, the normal procedure is to prepare list of candidates selected in order of their merit. In case of Chancellor vs. Shankar Rai and Others [1999(6) Supreme Court Cases 255] the Supreme Court held that the Chancellor even cannot re-evaluate the merit of the candidates and even on that basis cannot reject the candidates selected by the Board of appointment, except in the case, where recommendation is in violation of the provisions of the Act or Statute. In case of Triloki Nath Upadhya vs. Chairman, Bihar College Service Commission [2000(4) Patna Law Journal Reports 353] this Court held that the vacancy must be filled up strictly in accordance with the list sent by the Commission and the authorities cannot alter the order of merit. 16. This Court again in case of Dr. Sunil Kunar Jha vs. The State of Bihar and Ors. [2002(4) Patna Law Journal Reports 631] reiterated the same view as pronounced by the Apex Court and this Court in the cases, as referred to above. 17. The judgment of this Court, as rendered in case of Dr. Sunil Kumar Jha (supra) has been approved by this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1175 of 2005, as reported in case of Manjula Kumari vs. Dr. Sunil Kumar Jha and Others: [2004(4) Patna Law Journal Reports 457]. 18. In view of the findings aforesaid, it is held that the recommendation of the Commission was binding upon the governing body of the College and necessary appointment, therefore, could have been made strictly on the basis of the recommendation without altering the order on merit. It is further held that the recommendation of the Commission, in no way, can be said to be violative of the provisions of the Act or the Statute. 19. It is further held that the recommendation of the Commission, in no way, can be said to be violative of the provisions of the Act or the Statute. 19. In the aforesaid circumstances, the governing body has no option but to appoint the first nominee on the basis of the preference, as recommended by the Commission and has no discretion to choose the second nominee. The recommendation made by the Commission is statutory in nature under sub-sections (9) and (10) of Sec.2 of the Bihar College Service Commission Act, 1976 and, thus, it is binding upon the governing body to act accordingly. 20. In view of the findings aforesaid, the Court does not intend to enter into the thickets of the disputed question of facts and the questions of forgery and interpolations, as raised by respondent no. 6 in C.W.J.C. No. 3875 of 2000. 21. In the result, C.W.J.C. No 4053 of 2000 is allowed and the governing body of the College is directed to take a decision to appoint the writ petitioner on the post of Lecturer in English on the basis of the recommendation made by the Commission in accordance with law. C.W.J.C. No. 3875 of 2000 is dismissed, as it does not merit consideration in given facts and circumstances of the case.