Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent University as well as learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 6 and 7 who were subsequently added. 2. Originally, this writ petition was preferred by two petitioners, both claiming to be non teaching employees of Seth Ram Niranjan Das Murarka Sanskrit College, Chowk, Patna city. However, this writ petition has not been pressed by learned counsel in respect of petitioner No. 1. Only the case of petitioner No. 2, Suresh Prasad who claims to have been appointed as Night Guard in the said College has been pressed for consideration. The original prayer in the writ petition was to direct the respondent University to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner on the post in question. Petitioner No. 2 claims to have been appointed as Night Guard on 12.8.1997. Subsequently, when it was found that the University had allowed an appeal/representation of respondent No, 7 who was earlier terminated from the post of Night Guard in the said college and in whose place petitioner No. 2 was subsequently appointed, the petitioner filed an I.A. No. 5312 of 2005 whereby a prayer has been made to quash the relevant decision of the University dated 15.1.2001 which was annexed as Annexure-A to the counter affidavit of the University. By that order since the appeal/representation of respondent No. 7 against his termination was allowed hence the matter of approving the appointment of the petitioner No. 2 was not considered due to non availability of any post against which he could be appointed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised a number of issues to show that the report of three officials contained in Annexure-B to the counter affidavit is not a proper report and that the order passed on the basis of such report contained in Annexure-A dated 15.1.2001 is illegal. This Court is unable to accept the submissions raised on the basis of factual assertions which cannot be verified within the scope of this writ petition. It is well settled that University is an autonomous institution whose autonomy deserves to be respected. Courts should interfere only when it is brought to their notice that such authority has violated some provision of law demonstrating that it has acted without jurisdiction or in flagrant violation of established rights. 4. In the present case the factual situation is simple. It is well settled that University is an autonomous institution whose autonomy deserves to be respected. Courts should interfere only when it is brought to their notice that such authority has violated some provision of law demonstrating that it has acted without jurisdiction or in flagrant violation of established rights. 4. In the present case the factual situation is simple. The appointment of petitioner No. 2 was not approved till the appeal/representation of respondent No. 7 was finally considered and allowed. Since the appeal/representation of respondent No. 7 was allowed therefore there can be no question of granting approval to the appointment of the petitioner on the post on which respondent No. 7 had to be reinstated. The only important question of law raised on behalf of petitioner is that under the relevant statutes an appeal against the decision of the Governing Body to be preferred within 30 days before the Syndicate of the University and then only the Syndicate could have decided the appeal one way or the other. The other question of law raised was that for deciding the issue of granting approval to appointment of petitioner, as per statutes a Committee was required to look into the matter but the matter was never referred to such Committee and was turned down under the orders of the Vice Chancellor as appears from second part of impugned order dated 15.1.2001. 5. The counter affidavit of the University is to the effect that respondent No. 7 was dismissed as Night Guard by order of the then Principal on 13.5.1996 but such order was approved by the Governing Body on 29.9.1996 and such decision was communicated to respondent No. 7 in October 1996. Thereupon, respondent No. 7 preferred an appeal/representation before the University on 15.10.1996. For considering such appeal a Committee of three members holding high posts in the University was constituted and on considering the report of such Committee dated 12.8.2000 (Annexure-B) the order dated 15.1.2001 (Annexure-A) was issued by Registrar of the University under the orders of the Vice Chancellor. 6. Thereupon, respondent No. 7 preferred an appeal/representation before the University on 15.10.1996. For considering such appeal a Committee of three members holding high posts in the University was constituted and on considering the report of such Committee dated 12.8.2000 (Annexure-B) the order dated 15.1.2001 (Annexure-A) was issued by Registrar of the University under the orders of the Vice Chancellor. 6. Learned counsel for the University submitted that dates furnished by University would show that the appeal/representation of respondent No. 7 was within the period of 30 days since decision by the Governing body and Vice Chancellor acted in the matter in exercise of his power u/s. 10(12) of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 which authorizes the Vice Chancellor to act when the Syndicate or the Academic Council is not in session and he is satisfied that an emergency has arisen requiring him to take such immediate action involving the exercise of any power vested in the Syndicate. It was further submitted that as per requirement of the Act the Vice Chancellors action requires to be confirmed by the authority such as Syndicate and this shall appear from resolution of the Syndicate contained in Annexure-R/6 dated 19.7.2001 which shows that the Syndicate of the University in its proceeding dated 24.3.2001 authorised payment to respondent No. 7, Lastly, it was submitted that the matter of granting approval to the appointment of petitioner was not sent to the required Committee in view of the decision taken on the appeal/representation of respondent No. 7. No. approval can be granted to the appointment of the petitioner once the appeal of the respondent No. 7 was allowed and he had to be reinstated on the post in question. 7. Having considered the rival submissions and the relevant facts this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner cannot be granted any relief in exercise of writ jurisdiction because the post in question is no longer vacant. The decision of the Vice Chancellor contained in Annexure-A dated 15.1.2001 is also not in teeth of any statutory provision and does not require any interference. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. 8. If the petitioner wants to claim salary for the period he has alleged worked in the college on the basis of appointment offered to him by the then Principal, he would be at liberty to claim such salary etc. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. 8. If the petitioner wants to claim salary for the period he has alleged worked in the college on the basis of appointment offered to him by the then Principal, he would be at liberty to claim such salary etc. against the then Principal or the then Governing body of the college through a properly constituted suit.