JUDGMENT : Amareshwar Sahay, J. In view of the fact that both the writ applications are interconnected and, therefore, both the applications are taken up together and are disposed of by this common judgment. Facts of W.P. (S) No. 4892 of 2003: 2. The petitioner, Uday Narain Choudhary, has challenged the order as contained in Annexure-7 to this writ petition i.e. the order passed by the Chancellor, Universities of Jharkhand by which the representation filed by Nawleshwari Jha, questioning the legality of the appointment of the writ petitioner, Uday Narain Choudhary, as lecturer in the department of Philosophy in S.V.S.S.P.S. Janjatiya Mahavidyalaya, Pathargama, Godda, was allowed and appointment of writ petitioner, Uday Narain Choudhary was declared to be illegal with a direction to the Governing Body of S.V.S.S.P.S college to appoint Mr. Nawleshwari Jha as lecturer in the department of Philosophy in the said college. 3. The case of the writ petitioner, Uday Narain Choudhary, is that on 1.8.1988 he was appointed by the Governing Body of the college as lecturer on temporary basis in the department of Philosophy and accordingly he joined on 5.8.2008. The aforesaid college is affiliated with Sidhu Kanhu University, Dumka. Subsequently in the year 1998, an advertisement was published by Bihar College Service Commission inviting applications for the post of lecturer in the department of Philosophy in S.V.S.S.P.S Janjatiya Mahavidyalaya, Pathargama, Godda. The petitioner applied for being appointed as lecturer in the department of Philosophy in the said college having requisite qualifications. The college in question also recommended his name for such appointment. Ultimately, the Bihar College Service Commission by issuing Annexure 3 recommended the names of two persons against 3rd post in the department of Philosophy. The name of Nawaleshwar Jha-respondent No. 9 was placed at Serial No. 1 whereas the name of Uday Narain Choudhary was placed at serial No. 2 in the order of preference. The Governing Body of the college appointed the petitioner, Uday Narain Choudhary against the 3rd post as lecturer in the department of Philosophy. The name of Nawaleshwar Jha-respondent No. 9 was placed at Serial No. 1 whereas the name of Uday Narain Choudhary was placed at serial No. 2 in the order of preference. The Governing Body of the college appointed the petitioner, Uday Narain Choudhary against the 3rd post as lecturer in the department of Philosophy. The respondent No. 9, Nawleshwar Jha being aggrieved by the appointment of the petitioner made a representation before the Chancellor, Universities of Jharkhand making grievance that though his name appeared at serial No. 1 in the recommendation made by the Bihar College Service Commission but ignoring his name, the Governing Body of the college has appointed Uday Narain Choudhary as lecturer in the department of philosophy though he was at serial No. 2 in the recommendation of the Bihar College Service Commission. 4. From perusal of the order of the Chancellor, Universities of Jharkhand, it appears that he after considering the judgment of Patna High Court in the case Bahadur Prasad v. Bihar College Service Commission passed in C.W.J.C. No. 1911 of 2000 disposed of on 28.6.2001 held that when the name of a person is placed at serial No. 1 in the select list by the selecting authority, denial of appointment to him and giving the appointment to a person placed lower is a clear violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, he came to the conclusion that the appointment of petitioner, Uday Narain Choudhary against the 3rd post as lecturer in the department of philosophy in S.V.S.S.P.S. Janajhati College, Pathergama, Godda is illegal. 5. Mr. Ramavtar Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that Sub-section 7 and 9 of Section 2 of the Bihar College Service Commission Act, 1976 speaks about the appointment of lecturer subject to approval of University. He submits that the recommendation of the College Service Commission for appointment to other lecturer is only advisory in nature and it is not mandatory to appoint the person who is placed at Serial No. 1 in the recommendation. He further submitted that the Governing Body of the College was not bound to accept the preferential recommendation made by the College Service Commission. He further submitted that the Governing Body of the College was not bound to accept the preferential recommendation made by the College Service Commission. The only requirement for the Governing Body was that person should be appointed from the recommendation made by the College Service Commission but not in order of preference as recommended by the College Service Commission. 6. In my view, such submission is liable to be out rightly rejected in view of the clear cut provision of Sub-Section 7 and 9 of Section 2 of the College Service Commission Act, 1976. For reference Sub-Section 7 and 9 of Section 2 are quoted herein below: 2(7). Subject to the approval of the University, appointments, dismissals, removals, termination of service or reduction in rank of teachers of {affiliated colleges and intermediate colleges shall be made by the governing body of the college on the recommendation of the Commission. 2(9) The commission shall recommend for appointment to every post of teacher names of two persons arranged in order of preference and considered by the Commission to be the best qualified therefor. The commission shall be valid for one year from the date of the recommendation by the Commission. 7. Sub-Section 7 of Section 2 of the College Service Commission Act, 1976 quoted herein above speaks about the appointment, dismissal, removals, termination of service or reduction of rank of teachers of affiliated college shall be made subject to approval of the University on the recommendation of the Commission. The Use of word 'shall' in the Sub-Section clearly indicates that it was not advisory or directory rather it was absolutely mandatory for the Governing Body to act in order of preference on the recommendation of the commission. Sub-Section 9 of Section 2 clearly speaks that the commission shall recommend for appointment of every post of teacher names of two persons arranged in order of preference. If the recommendation of the College Service Commission made of two persons in order of preference is ignored by the Governing Body of the College then it would amount to violation of Provisions of Section 9 of Section of the Bihar College Service Commission Act, 1976. 8. In the case of Jatinder Kumar and Others Vs. If the recommendation of the College Service Commission made of two persons in order of preference is ignored by the Governing Body of the College then it would amount to violation of Provisions of Section 9 of Section of the Bihar College Service Commission Act, 1976. 8. In the case of Jatinder Kumar and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Others, AIR 1984 SC 1850 , the Supreme Court, while dealing with a case of the recommendation made by Public Service Commission, has held that the appointment has to be made strictly adhering to the order of merit as recommended by the Public Service Commission. It cannot disturb the order of merit according to its own sweat will except for other good reasons viz., bad conduct or character. 9. In the present case, I also find that the University did not approve the appointment of the petitioner. 10. In view of the discussion and finding above, I hold that the Chancellor, University of Jharkhand has rightly held that the petitioner was wrongly and illegally appointed as lecturer in the department of Philosophy in S.V.S.S.P.S College, Pathargama, Godda ignoring respondent No. 9 who was recommended by the Bihar College Service Commission and was placed at serial No. 1, I do not find any illegality or irregularities in the said order. Therefore, this writ petition having no merit is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. W.P.(S) No. 4663 of 2002 In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for direction upon the respondents to appoint him as lecturer in S.V.S.S.P.S, College, Pathawgama, Godda on the 3rd post as per the recommendation of Bihar College Service Commission, Patna. In view of the fact that the writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 4892 of 2003 filed by Uday Narain Choudhary has already been dismissed by me and the order of Chancellor contained in Annexure 7 to the writ petition, has been affirmed, this writ petition is allowed and the respondent-Governing Body of the S.V.S.S.P.S. College, Pathargama, Godda is directed to implement the order of Chancellor, University of Jharkhand as contained in Annexure-9 to the supplementary affidavit i.e Annexure 7 to the earlier writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 4892 of 2003, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of this order. Consequently the W.P. (S) No. 4892 of 2003 is hereby dismissed whereas W.P. (S) No. 4663 of 2002 is hereby allowed. No costs.