Judgment 1. This second appeal has been filed by defendant no. 3-appellant no. 3-sole appellant against the judgments and decree of both the learned courts below. 2. The matter arises out of Title Suit No. 142 of 1972 (9/1987) filed by plaintiff- respondent-respondent no. 1 for declaration that letter dated 20.9.1972 sent by defendant no. 2 the Principal of M.V. College, Buxar on the basis of approval accorded by defendant no. 4 the Vice-Chancellor of Magadh University in favour of defendant no. 3 Sri Udai Narain Rai (appellant) was illegal, void and without jurisdiction and that the plaintiff being senior to defendant no. 3 had a right of automatic nomination to the Governing Body in preference to defendant no. 3 and also that approval accorded by the University to defendant no. 3 was illegal, void and without jurisdiction and for directing defendant no. 4 to accord approval to the services of plaintiff and for restraining defendant nos. 1 and 2 (Convener and Principal of the College) from convening any meeting of Governing Body of the College without the plaintiff as a teacher representative. 3. The defendants contested the claim of the plaintiff by filing their respective written statements whereafter on the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed the following issues: (i) Has the plaintiff got valid cause of action for the suit? (ii) Is the suit as framed maintainable? (iii) Is the suit barred by time? (iv) Is the suit barred by principle d res-judicata, waiver and acquiescence? (v) Is the plaintiff a permanent lecturer appointed by the Governing Body of the College? (vi) Is the appointment of defendant no. 3 legal and valid? (vii) Is the plaintiff entitled to a decree as claimed for the approval of his service by defendant no. 4 from due date in place of defendant no. 3? (viii) To what other relief or reliefs, if any, the plaintiff is entitled? 4. On the basis of aforesaid issues, evidence were led and arguments were made by the parties whereafter the learned 1st Additional Munsif, Buxar vide judgment and decree dated 16.8.1990 decreed the suit on contest with cost after arriving at the following findings: (a) The plaintiff Bharat Naraian Mishra is a permanent lecturer appointed by the Governing Body of the College and accordingly, his appointment should be approved by defendant no. 4 in place of defendant no. 4 in place of defendant no. 3 from 13.6.1968 i.e. from the date of his permanent appointment in the Hindi Department of the College. (b) The appointment of defendant no. 3 Udai Narain Rai in place of plaintiff by the illegally constituted Ad-hoc Committee was quite illegal and invalid.