JUDGMENT M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. Since both these appeals arose out of the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 767 of 2004, they have been heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. L.P.A. No. 574 of 2006 has been filed by respondent No. 3 of the writ petition, namely, Dr. Leela Singh (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) while L.P.A. No. 623 of 2006 has been filed by Vinoba Bhave University (hereinafter referred to as the University). By the impugned judgment, the learned Single judge quashed the order dated 7.1.2004 passed by the University and declared respondent No. 1 - Ram Sharan Nishad (hereinafter referred to as the writ petitioner) senior to the appellant, Dr. Leela Singh. 3. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass: Respondent No. 1 - Ram Sharan Nishad (hereinafter referred to as the writ petitioner) was appointed on 6.11.1979 as Lecturer of Psychology in J.M. College, Ramgarh, Hazaribagh (in short the College). According to the writ petitioner, the said college was a private college governed by the Managing Committee and his appointment was made after due advertisement and interview by the Governing Body of the College which was affiliated with the Ranchi University. In the year 1987, 15 posts were sanctioned by the Education Department of the State of Bihar in various disciplines including Psychology. In 1989, by advertisement No. 803 of 1989, applications were invited for post of Lecturers in Psychology on regular basis. By another advertisement No. 800 of 1989, applications were invited for the post of Lecturer in the discipline of Political Science. The appellant applied for the post of Lecturer in Political Science and the writ petitioner applied for the post of Lecturer in the discipline of Psychology pursuant to the said advertisement. Thereafter, the Bihar College Service Commission conducted selection process and made recommendations. By letter dated 19th November, 1994, the Commission recommended the case of the appellant for appointment on the post of Lecturer in Political Science. Consequently, appointment letter was issued on 12th November, 1995 and the appellant joined her post on 14th November, 1995. However, after 4 years, the Commission recommended the name of the writ petitioner for appointment of Lecturers in the discipline of Psychology vide letter dated 16.9.1998. Consequently, appointment letter was issued on 12th November, 1995 and the appellant joined her post on 14th November, 1995. However, after 4 years, the Commission recommended the name of the writ petitioner for appointment of Lecturers in the discipline of Psychology vide letter dated 16.9.1998. Consequently, letter of appointment was issued by the College on 8th February, 1999 for appointment of the writ petitioner. However, in the said letter, the appointment of the writ petitioner was made effective from the date of his initial appointment. 4. Dispute arose between the writ petitioner and the appellant in 2001 when the post of Principal fell vacant in the said College. The Managing Committee was asked by the University vide letter dated 5.7.2000 to relieve the Principal on retirement and to appoint the seniormost teacher of the College as Incharge Principal with immediate effect. In compliance of the said letter, the Secretary of the Managing Committee of the College appointed the appellant as Incharge Principal till further order vide letter dated 30th July, 2001. Against the said appointment of the appellant as Incharge Principal, the writ petitioner made representation to the Registrar of the University on 24th August 2001. When the representation was not considered, the writ petitioner filed a writ petition being W.P.S. No. 1507 of 2002 which was disposed of vide order dated 16th July, 2003 with a direction to the Vice Chancellor of the University to consider the claim of the writ petitioner and the appellant and to take a decision as to who is entitled to the post of Incharge Principal on the basis of the seniority. In compliance of the aforesaid direction, the Vice Chancellor of the University vide order dated 7.1.2004 declared the appellant as senior to the writ petitioner on the ground that appointment of the appellant was earlier than that of the writ petitioner. 5. Aggrieved by the said order, the writ petitioner filed writ petition being W.P.S. No. 767 of 2004 challenging the order passed by the University. 6. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties, allowed the writ petition and quashed the order passed by the Vice Chancellor and declared the writ petitioner senior to the appellant. 5. Aggrieved by the said order, the writ petitioner filed writ petition being W.P.S. No. 767 of 2004 challenging the order passed by the University. 6. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties, allowed the writ petition and quashed the order passed by the Vice Chancellor and declared the writ petitioner senior to the appellant. The learned Single Judge was of the view that the appellant was appointed for the first time in November, 1995, whereas the writ petitioner was appointed for the first time in 1979 and thereafter, vide order dated 8th February, 1999, the writ petitioners permanent appointment became operative from 4th November, 1979, whereas admittedly, the appellant came in service in 1995. The learned Single judge also took the view that seniority is to be determined on the basis of length of service and the writ petitioner has long service than the appellant, which fact has been ignored by the University while declaring the appellant as senior to the writ petitioner. 7. Mr. M.S. Anwar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant - Dr. Leela Singh, (respondent No. 3 in the writ petition) assailed the impugned order as being wholly illegal, contrary to law, facts and evidence on record. Learned Counsel submitted that admittedly the College Service Commission recommended the name of the appellant for the post of Lecturer in the discipline of Political Science on 19.11.1994 and she was appointed by the Managing Committee on the basis of the recommendation of the Commission. On 14.11.1995, the appellant joined the post of Lecturer in the College and her appointment was approved by the Governing Body, whereas the name of the writ petitioner was recommended by the Commission on 16.9.1998 and he was appointed by the College on 8.2.1999. The writ petitioner joined the post on 10.2.1999 and his appointment was approved by the Governing Body on 13.5.2000. For the aforesaid reasons, the appellant was appointed as Incharge Principal of the College on 30.7.2001 and since then, she has been continuing as such. Learned Counsel further submitted that Dr. Leela Singh was appointed on substantive post on the recommendation or the Commission on 12.11.1995, whereas the writ petitioner was appointed on substantive post on the basis of recommendation of the Commission on 8.2.1999, i.e. more than 3 years after the appointment of the appellant. Learned Counsel further submitted that Dr. Leela Singh was appointed on substantive post on the recommendation or the Commission on 12.11.1995, whereas the writ petitioner was appointed on substantive post on the basis of recommendation of the Commission on 8.2.1999, i.e. more than 3 years after the appointment of the appellant. Learned Counsel further submitted that for determining the inter se seniority of the teachers the date of recommendation by the Commission shall be the basis and, therefore, the University rightly declared the appellant senior to the writ petitioner. Learned Counsel further submitted that the posts of Lecturer in Political Science as well as Psychology were created in the year 1987 on the ground of affiliation of the college. Hence, any appointment on an unsanctioned post is non est in law. It is stated that appointment of the writ petitioner vide appointment letter dated 8.2.1999 was made effective from the dale of initial appointment only after approval of the Governing Body and the University. The University has not approved the appointment with retrospective effect. As such, the appointment has to be accepted from the date of appointment i.e. 8.2.1999. According to the learned Counsel, this aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned Single Judge. 8. We are unable to accept the submission made by Mr. M.S. Anwar for many reasons. Admittedly, the writ petitioner was initially appointed by the Governing Body of the College on 12.11.1979. In 1987, posts had been sanctioned by the State Government including the post against which writ petitioner was working. In 1990, Bihar College Service Commission accorded temporary concurrence which was time to time extended. It is, therefore, clear that writ petitioner was working on a post duly sanctioned by the Government. In 1989, when posts in different disciplines were advertised and applications were invited, the appellant, Dr. Leela Singh, was not eligible on the last date of submission of the applications. Curiously enough, in 1993, a fresh advertisement was made and against that, the appellant applied in the discipline of Political Science. For the reasons best known to the Commission, the case of respondent No. 1 (the writ petitioner) was kept pending, whereas the name of the appellant was recommended by the Commission. Pursuant thereto, appointment letter was issued in favour of the appellant on 12.11.1995 and her appointment was approved by the Governing body on 23.1.1997. For the reasons best known to the Commission, the case of respondent No. 1 (the writ petitioner) was kept pending, whereas the name of the appellant was recommended by the Commission. Pursuant thereto, appointment letter was issued in favour of the appellant on 12.11.1995 and her appointment was approved by the Governing body on 23.1.1997. It was only thereafter, the Commission after keeping the case of the writ petitioner pending for four years, recommended his name on 16.9.1998. Since the writ petitioner was working on the sanctioned post, the Governing Body approved his appointment with effect from the date of his appointment on the sanctioned post i.e. from 1987. The respondent-University in the impugned order, therefore, committed serious error of law in holding that the date of substantive appointment of writ petitioner may be 16.9.1998 i.e. after the appointment of the appellant. 9. It is well settled that where the first appointment is made on a sanctioned post by following prescribed procedure and such appointment is approved later on, the approval would mean his confirmation by the authority and shall relate back to the date on which his appointment was made and the entire service will have to be computed in reckoning the seniority. 10. The learned Single Judge, therefore, rightly held that the University has ignored this aspect of the matter and erroneously declared the appellant senior to the writ petitioner (respondent No. 1). The decision taken by the University while deciding inter se seniority between the appellant and writ petitioner, cannot be sustained in law and has, therefore, been rightly quashed by the learned Single Judge. . 11. For the reasons aforesaid, we do not find any merit in these appeals, which are accordingly, dismissed. D.K. Sinha, J. 12. I agree.