Judgment 1. Heard the parties. 2. In this writ application the petitioner has assailed the two orders dated 11.3.2003 and 7.7.2003 passed by the Chancellor of the University as communicated by the Deputy Secretary, Governors Secretariat in his two letters dated 11.3.2003 and 7.7.2003 rejecting the claim for his appointment on the post of Registrar of Magadh University. 3. Facts are not in dispute that on a requisitions sent by the Magadh University, Bodh Gaya, the Bihar State University (Constituent Colleges) Service Commission, hereinafter referred to as the Commission, had advertised one post of Registrar for the Magadh University vide Advertisement No. 79USC/2000. Pursuant to that advertisement of the year 2000 the Commission had also conducted an interview in the year 2001 and the petitioner alongwith others had appeared in the said interview. Thereafter, the Commission 9.3.2002 is said to have recommended the solitary name of one Dr. Nalin Kumar Shastri on the post of Registrar. The Syndicate of the University in its meeting held on 21.3.2002 however did not approve the appointment of Dr. Nalin Kumar Shastri in view of an order of the Chancellor dated 14.9.2001 which reads as follows: "Dr. N.K. Shastri is continuing as CCDS, Magadh University in violation of the provision of Section 14(b) of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 . His conduct as the Acting Registrar of the University in the past had also been under cloud. Hon ble Chancellor has, therefore, been pleased to order that Dr. N.K. Shastri, the present CCDC, Magadh University, be reverted to his original post of teacher and further that he be debarred from holding the post of an officer under the University (Proctor, Development Officer, CCDC or Dean, Students Welfare) in future." 4. The Vice-Chancellor of the University however, on 31.3.2002 had requested the Commission that a fresh recommendation for the post of Registrar should be sent as the Syndicate had refused to appoint Dr. Shastri on the post in keeping with the direction of Chancellor. Such request of the Vice-Chancellor was initially not acceded to by the Commission which by its letter dated 10.4.2002 had advised the Vice-Chancellor of the University to act in accordance with Section 58(3) of the Bihar State Universities Act read with Section 12 of Bihar State Universities (Constituent College) Service Commission Act, 1987. 5. Such request of the Vice-Chancellor was initially not acceded to by the Commission which by its letter dated 10.4.2002 had advised the Vice-Chancellor of the University to act in accordance with Section 58(3) of the Bihar State Universities Act read with Section 12 of Bihar State Universities (Constituent College) Service Commission Act, 1987. 5. The Vice-Chancellor of the University by his letter dated 20.4.2002 had also sought approval of the Chancellor as with regard to Syndicates resolution dated 21.3.2002 refusing appointment of Dr. Shastri on the post of registrar and also a permission requiring the Commission to recommend name of another suitable person for appointment on the post of Registrar. The Chancellor in his order dated 8.5.2002 while approving the decision of the Syndicate of the University regarding refusal of appointment of Dr. Nalin Kumar Shastri did not give permission to the Vice-Chancellor for requesting the Commission for a fresh recommendation of another person for the post of Registrar. The Vice-Chancellor of the University however vide his letter dated 24.7.2002 had requested the Commission to send a fresh recommendation for the post of Registrar and it is in pursuance of this letter of the Vice-Chancellor dated 24.7.2002 that the Officer on Special Duty to the Commission by his letter dated 13.11.2002 had recommended the name of the petitioner wherein it was also stated that such recommendation was being sent by the Commission without there being adequate information with regard to category of reservation of the post and by treating the post of Registrar of general category and as such the Commission would not be responsible for violation of norms of reservation. It appears thereafter that the matter relating to appointment of the petitioner was placed before the meeting of the Syndicate of the University in the meeting held 5.12.2002 and when the Syndicate had refused to appoint the petitioner and had sought a guideline from the Chancellor because the recommendation of the Commission was sent under the signature of one Mr. K.N. Prasad, Officer on special duty to the Commission whose similar letter of recommendation in the case of appointment of the post of lecturer had been declared to be illegal by the office of the Chancellor. K.N. Prasad, Officer on special duty to the Commission whose similar letter of recommendation in the case of appointment of the post of lecturer had been declared to be illegal by the office of the Chancellor. It is only thereafter that the Chancellor having applied his mind by a decision through his Deputy Secretary dated 11.3.2003 had got it communicated to the Vice-Chancellor of the Magadh University that the recommendation of the Commission in favour of the petitioner should not be acted upon for making appointment on the post of Registrar of University as it had been made by the Commission at a time when it was "lopsided". The petitioner after having acquired knowledge of the said decision of the Chancellor had filed an exhaustive review application under Section 9(4a) of the Bihar State Universities Act, and the said review application also came to be rejected by order of the Chancellor communicated through his Dy. Secretary in his letter dated 7.7.2003 addressed to the petitioner informing him that the Chancellor was pleased to reject the review application of the petitioner for his appointment on the post of Registrar of the University as not maintainable. 6. Mr. Chandra Shekhar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has basically made two submissions, namely, that once name of the petitioner was recommended by the competent Commission, the decision given by the Chancellor in the impugned order holding Commission to be "lopsided", is unsustainable being factually incorrect and legally, impermissible. Mr. Chandra Shekhar further in this regard had stressed that the validity of the recommendation of the Commission in his favour for appointment on the post of Registrar could not have been annulled by the Chancellor on the basis the alleged discrepancy in the constitution of the Commission and that the petitioners right to be considered in a fair and objective manner for his appointment was curtailed by the uncalled for interference of the Chancellor. 7. Mr. Shivendra Kishore, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Chancellor with reference to the counter affidavit filed by him on behalf of respondent nos. 7. Mr. Shivendra Kishore, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Chancellor with reference to the counter affidavit filed by him on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 4 had drawn attention of this court to paras 21, 22 and 23 of the counter affidavit and had impressed upon this Court that the Chancellor had considered each and eveVy aspect of the matter relating to appointment of the petitioner and when he was satisfied that the recommendation of the Commission in favour of the petitioner could not have been acted upon, such a decision as was taken by him in exercise of his power under Section 58(3) of the Act and again the same reiterated by the Chancellor while rejecting the review application of the petitioner. Mr. Shivendra Kishore in this context has relied upon Section 58(2)(gha) of the Act which according to him lays down that the Commission would make recommendation for only one name against each post. On this basis Mr. Shivendra Kishore had submitted that once the Commission had sent recommendation of Dr. Nalin Kumar Shastri and that recommendation was not found to be valid, the whole exercise of the commission of sending recommendation in response to the earlier advertisement had came to an end and the decision of the Vice-Chancellor asking for another recommendation from the Commission was itself illegal and without jurisdiction inasmuch as, neither the Syndicate had authorized him to do so nor even the Chancellor had given such a permission to the Vice-Chancellor. 8. Counsel for the University, who has also filed a counter affidavit today has submitted that as a matter of fact the claim of appointment of the petitioner as raised in this writ application had become infructuous and academic inasmuch as, after Chancellors order was passed on 11.3.2003, soon thereafter within 16 days the post of Registrar of the University was filled up by way of transfer of one Md. Ghulam Mustafa (respondent no. 7) holding substantive post of Registrar. The counsel for the University thus contends that after the said post was substantively filled up by way of transfer of Mr. Ghulam Mustafa (respondent no. 7) holding substantive post of Registrar. The counsel for the University thus contends that after the said post was substantively filled up by way of transfer of Mr. Mustafa under an order of the Chancellor dated 27.3.2003 there was no longer any vacancy on the post of Registrar of the University and as such the petitioners legitimate expectation much less a legal right to be appointed on the post of the Registrar of University in terms of the recommendation made in his favour by the Commission stood extinguished on 27.3.2003 itself upon appointment of Mr. Mustafa as the Registrar of the University who had also continued for his full term and was again replaced by another regularly appointed Registrar of the University. He had also submitted that the Syndicate of the University being the appointing authority of the post of Registrar had also not accepted the recommendation in favour of the petitioner for his appointment on the post of Registrar and the Chancellors decision in terms of Section 58(3) of the Act on a reference made by the Syndicate was unexceptionable both on fact and/or in law. 9. Mr. Chandra Shekhar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner had submitted that it is not correct to say that the Vice-Chancellor was not authorized to ask for fresh recommendation from the Commission. He had also stressed that the post of Registrar was sought to be filled by direct appointment by open advertisement and the vacancy could not been filled up by transfer under the orders of the Chancellor. In this regard he had submitted that while it is true that the post of Registrar of the University got filled up by transfer of Respondent No. 7 another person holding the substantive post of Registrar but the present Registrar namely Mr. B.K. Yadav being not appointed as Registrar on substantive basis, the writ application had not still become infructuous and this court could give a consequential direction for appointment of the petitioner on the post of Registrar of the University after quashing the two impugned orders. 10. Having considered the aforementioned submissions, this court is of the view that this writ application by lapse of time has now become infructuous on account of the fact that from the advertisement of the year 2000 as contained in Annexure-1 the Commission made recommendation in favour of Dr. 10. Having considered the aforementioned submissions, this court is of the view that this writ application by lapse of time has now become infructuous on account of the fact that from the advertisement of the year 2000 as contained in Annexure-1 the Commission made recommendation in favour of Dr. Nalin Kumar Shastri, who however was not appointed as Registrar by the Syndicate, the appointing authority of the post of Registrar and such decision of the Syndicate was also approved by the Chancellor in exercise of his power under Section 58(3) of the Act. The moment recommendation of the Commission in favour of Dr. Shastri was rejected the selection process on the post of Registrar pursuant to the advertisement of the year 2000 came to an end and the same could not have been revived either by the Vice-Chancellor on his own or even by the Commission in view of the provisions under Section 58(3) read with Section 58(2)(gha) of the Act. 11. The Vice-Chancellor in the opinion of this court in fact no power or jurisdiction to ask for another recommendation from the Commission on the basis of earlier selection process, specially when neither the Syndicate nor the Chancellor in his order dated 8.5.2002 had authorized him to do so despite his specific request to the Chancellor to this effect in his letter dated 20.4.2002. In that view of the matter the very action of the Vice-Chancellor of asking for fresh recommendation on the basis of the earlier process of selection after refusal of appointment of the sole recommendation of Dr. Shastri by the Commission in terms of Section 58(2)(gha) was itself illegal and without jurisdiction and on that basis the petitioner cannot claim any legal right to be appointed on the post of Registrar of the University. The pleadings in the entire writ application including its paragraph no. 11 read with its Annexures-10 and 11 also make it abundantly clear that as a matter of fact fresh recommendation for appointment on the post of Registrar was not even contemplated either by any decision taken by the Syndicate or under the order of Chancellor dated 8.5.2002. 12. In that view of the matter, reliance of Mr. 11 read with its Annexures-10 and 11 also make it abundantly clear that as a matter of fact fresh recommendation for appointment on the post of Registrar was not even contemplated either by any decision taken by the Syndicate or under the order of Chancellor dated 8.5.2002. 12. In that view of the matter, reliance of Mr. Shivendra Kishore on Section 58(2)(gha) of the Act seems to be correct which in no uncertain terms go to show that the Commission may make only one recommendation against one post and when that recommendation made in favour of Dr. Shastri was rejected by the Syndicate of the University and was also confirmed by the Chancellor in his order dated 8.5.2002 in exercise of his power under Section 58(3) of the Act the Commission also had not jurisdiction to make another fresh recommendation on the basis of the old selection process which had already stood completed by the recommendation of the Commission in favour of Dr. Shastri. In fact the earlier view of the Commission in its letter dated 10.4.2002 not acceding to the request of the Vice-Chancellor to make fresh recommendation for the post of Registrar on the basis of earlier selection process was correct. The subsequent changed attitude of the Commission in making a conditional recommendation in favour of the petitioner on a wholly uncalled for and unauthorised request of the Vice-Chancellor is itself per se illegal and in teeth of Section 58(2)(gha) of the Act and this Court cannot issue a writ of mandamus to appoint the petitioner on the basis of such illegal recommendation of the Commission. Apart, the fact that the post of Registrar had filled up by way of transfer on 27.3.2003 and the said Registrar was replaced by another regular Registrar shows that the requisition made for appointment of Registrar had already lost its force. 13. From the order of the Chancellor and stand taken in paras 22 and 23 of the counter affidavit of the Chancellor it is clear that the Chancellor has examined each and every aspect of the matter and the view reqorded by the action of the Commission in sending name of the petitioner to the unauthorised requisition of the Vice-Chancellor was itself illegal, his consequential decision for not appointing the petitioner on such tainted recommendation cannot be faulted either on fact or in law. This Court therefore finds that the order of Chancellor rejecting the review application is also correct and in accordance with law. 14. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the post of Registrar was advertised for its filled up by way of direct appointment, the same could not have filled up by another mode of transfer of a regular Registrar is wholly misconceived and must be rejected. It is always open to the appointing authority not to fill up a post even after undergoing the process of advertisement and selection if requirement of filling up such post has ceased for any justifiable reason. In the facts of the present case as soon as the Chancellor and the Syndicate had rejected the name of Sri Shastri, the solitary recommended candidate for the post of Registrar by the Commission and such post was filled up by way of transfer of a regular Registrar the petitioner could not claim a right to be appointed merely on the basis of a subsequent recommendation. Law even otherwise on this aspect is well settled that an empanelled candidate has no indefensible right of being appointed on an advertised post if there is no longer a need for the appointing authority to fill up the advertised post. This Court however must clarify that the petitioner was not an empanelled candidate inasmuch as his name was not recommended by the Commission in the first instance which had recommended the solitary name of Mr. Shastri for the single post of Registrar. Any subsequent and that too qualified as well as conditional recommendation of the Commission in favour of the petitioner on the basis of an uncalled for and unauthorised requisition sent by the Vice-Chancellor on a date when there was no vacancy on the post of Registrar in the University did not/could clothe the petitioner with any right for his being appointed as a Registrar of the University. 15. In that view of the matter, order of the Chancellor rejecting the review application of the petitioner as also the initial order of the Chancellor directing the University not to appoint the petitioner being perfectly legal and in keeping the provisions of Section 58 of the Act, needs no interference by this Court. 16. That being so, there is no merit in this writ application and the same is accordingly dismissed.