JUDGEMENT 1. These two appeals preferred by the Patna University arise from the common judgment dated 18th August, 2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in so far as CWJC Nos. 2703 and 5547 of 2009 are allowed. 2. Under the impugned judgment, the appellant, Patna University (hereinafter referred to as "the University") has been directed to interview the two writ petitioners pursuant to the Advertisement Nos. 3/08 and 2/08 for the post of Principal in the Constituent Colleges of the Patna University. 3. Smt. Shashi Prabha, the writ petitioner in CWJC No. 5547 of 2009 was a Project Officer in the Department of Adult and Continuing Education in Patna University. She was appointed as such in the year 1984. In the year 2003 she was appointed as Lecturer in the Department of Education in Womens College, Patna University. Pursuant to the Advertisement No. 3 of 2008 she applied for selection and appointment as the Principal, Womens Training College. Her candidature was cancelled on the ground that she did not possess adequate teaching experience. Feeling aggrieved the writ petitioner filed CWJC No. 5547 of 2009. 4. The Advertisement stipulated 15 years of teaching experience or research in any University or College or any other Institution of Higher Education. It was the claim of the writ petitioner that the University Grants Commission has treated the post of Project Officer as equivalent to that of Lecturer. The experience of the writ petitioner as a Project Officer should be treated as teaching experience. In that case the writ petitioner did possess the requisite teaching experience of 15 years. 5. Smt. Preeti Sinha the writ petitioner in CWJC No. 2703 of 2009* was a Lecturer in St. Xaviers College, a Non-Government Unaided Minority College. Pursuant to the Advertisement No. 2 of 2008 and 3 of 2008, she applied for appointment as Principal or Professor in Constituent College of the University. Her candidature was cancelled on the ground that she had not produced the concurrence certificate as envisaged by Section 57A(1) of the Bihar State Universities Act. Feeling aggrieved, she preferred CWJC No.2703 of 2009. 6. The learned Single Judge did not find merit in the defence advanced by the Patna University. The advertisements in question did not require a candidate to produce concurrence certificate as was made out in the defence of the writ petitions. 7. Feeling aggrieved, she preferred CWJC No.2703 of 2009. 6. The learned Single Judge did not find merit in the defence advanced by the Patna University. The advertisements in question did not require a candidate to produce concurrence certificate as was made out in the defence of the writ petitions. 7. The learned single Judge, by the impugned judgment and order, was pleased to allow both the writ petitions and to direct the University to conduct fresh interview pursuant to the Advertisement No.2 of 2008 and 3 of 2008 and to allow the petitioners to appear in the interview. Feeling aggrieved the University has preferred the present Appeal. 8. Learned Advocate, Sri Ajay Kumar Sinha appearing for the Patna University has urged that the experience gained by the writ petitioners in the unaided Minority College or as a Project Officer cannot be counted for the purpose of computing experience for appointment. In support of his submission, he has relied upon Section 57A(1) of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 , particularly, the proviso thereto. He has also relied upon the definition of the word "College" occurring in Section 2(g) of the Act. 9. We are afraid, we are unable to agree with the learned Advocate. Neither the aforesaid statutory provision nor the advertisement in question debars the writ petitioners from consideration for appointment to the post of Principal/Reader in the University nor their experience gained in the Minority College or as a Project Officer can be ignored. 10. We agree with the learned Single Judge. The appeals are dismissed. 11. We may clarify that in the event the Patna University wants to continue with the selection procedure, the University will be bound to interview the writ petitioners as directed by the learned Single Judge. The University will, however, be at liberty to cancel the selection procedure initiated by the aforesaid Advertisement Nos. 2 of 2008 and 3 of 2008 and to start the selection procedure de novo in accordance with law. 12. The Registry will maintain copy of this order in each Appeal.