JUDGEMENT 1. The petitioner, by this writ application, challenges the appointment of respondent no.5- Anjani Kumar Ambastha, as the Principal of Lakshmi Devi Inter College, Dasrathpur, Munger. Notices were issued by this Court to the Governing Body as well as to the Secretary of the said College. Notices were also issued to respondent no.5- Anjani Kumar Ambastha. They have all appeared and filed their counter affidavits. The matter has been heard at this stage itself for disposal with the consent of the parties. 2. The submission of the petitioner is short. She submits that there being vacancy in the post of Principal of Lakshmi Devi Inter College, Dasrathpur, Munger. As required by law, the matter was referred to the Bihar College Service Commission seeking recommendation. Bihar College Service Commission issued advertisement in which the petitioner also applied, apart from respondent no.5- Anjani Kumar Ambastha and one Harendra Prasad Singh, who was the Incharge Principal.The College, in question, is an Inter College enjoying recognization from the Bihar School Examination Board and at that time Bihar Intermediate Education Council. It may be mentioned here that after due enquiry, the College Service Commission made its recommendation on 5.10.2002, which is Annexure 8 to the writ petition. In its recommendation for the post of Principal of the College, the petitioner was placed as the first choice and respondent no.5- Anjani Kumar Ambastha was placed as second choice. Harendra Prasad Singh, who was working as Incharge Principal was not recommended. The recommendation having been received, then started the cat and mouse story. The meeting of the Governing Body was not being called because upon the Governing Body meeting being convened, they would have immediately take a decision with regard to appointment of Permanent Principal, which was inconvenient to the said Harendra Prasad Singh. He was allowed to function as such. This brought the petitioner to this Court on an earlier occasion. This Court directed the Governing Body to immediately convene a meeting for the purpose of appointment of permanent Principal but even then that was not done, which was followed by filing a contempt petition. In the meantime, the said Harendra Prasad Singh preferred L.P.A. and an interim order was issued therein staying the judgment of the learned Single Judge. This Court directed the Governing Body to immediately convene a meeting for the purpose of appointment of permanent Principal but even then that was not done, which was followed by filing a contempt petition. In the meantime, the said Harendra Prasad Singh preferred L.P.A. and an interim order was issued therein staying the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Unfortunately or fortunately, L.P.A. was subsequently withdrawn but in the meantime, damage was done.The Governing Body met on 13.1.2004 and by its proceeding as contained in Annexure 17, rejected the recommendation made in favour of the petitioner and accepted the recommendation in favour of respondent no.5 as the Principal. Pursuant to the aforesaid decision of the Governing Body, respondent no.5 was appointed as the Principal and is working. 3. On behalf of the Governing Body and the respondent no.5 with reference to the proceeding of the Governing Body, it is submitted that the Governing Body enquired into the educational qualification and the experience of the petitioner. They found that the petitioner has made, apparently, a wrong claim of having teaching experience in a College at Saharsa, which Intermediate College, it is submitted, has no recognization so far as the subject Home Science is concerned. Thus, in view of the Governing Body, the petitioner had sought recommendation on wrong paper. Thus, the Governing Body rejected the candidature of the petitioner and consequently accepted the recommendation of the Commission and chose to appoint respondent no.5. Here I may notice that the petitioner has filed a supplementary affidavit in which the petitioner has annexed cross list of Intermediate examination of the said College for past several years to show that Hindi Science was a subject, which was being taught in that College at Saharsa and the Bihar School Examination Board was duly conducted examination of that College in that subject. Apparently, the stand of the private respondent is that there is no permanent recognization in respect of Home Science subject for the said Saharsa College. In my view, they are correct but only partial. The Board also supports it but the fact is that they have provisional recognization and that is why the examinations are being conducted though the recognization is not permanent. The entire case of respondent as against the petitioner thus collapse. In my view, they are correct but only partial. The Board also supports it but the fact is that they have provisional recognization and that is why the examinations are being conducted though the recognization is not permanent. The entire case of respondent as against the petitioner thus collapse. It is now well settled by several judgments of this Court that where appointments are to be made on recommendation of the Commission, then the Governing Body cannot disagree with the recommendation and/or ignore the same. The recommendation and the order which is made is binding . Multiple recommendations giving priority are made only to avoid repeated exercises in case the first recommended person, for some reason,does not choice otherwise the recommendation as made is final. In other words, the Governing Body cannot sit in judgment as an Appellate Authority over the recommendation of the Commission. As has been held by this Court, the Governing Body cannot re-appraise the academic qualification or the suitability. In this connection I may also notice that this is the consistent view of this Court as would be found in the cases of Triloki Nath Upadhya V/s.The Chairman, Bihar College Service Commission & ors. Since reported in 2000(4)PLJR 353, Dr. Sunil Kumar Jha- V/s.The State of Bihar & ors. Since reported in 2002(4)PLJR 631 and Manjula Kumari - Vs. Dr. Sunil Kumar Jha & ors. Since reported in 2004(4)PLJR 457. 4. In view of the aforesaid the respondent had no option but to accept the recommendation as made by the Commission. I may also note here that if they had any reservation about it on any aspect of the matter. The only option left with them was to refer the matter back to the Commission for clarification but they could not have rejected the recommendation, as made by the Commission, which was binding on them. It is surprising that though the recommendation of the Commission was made in October, 2002 it took almost one and a half year for the Governing Body to act upon it permitting a person to continue, who was even not found fit to be recommended by the Commission. 5. In the facts and circumstances aforesaid, I have no option but to set aside the decision of the Governing Body and directed to proceed upon the recommendation of the Commission in respect of the petitioner in accordance with law. 5. In the facts and circumstances aforesaid, I have no option but to set aside the decision of the Governing Body and directed to proceed upon the recommendation of the Commission in respect of the petitioner in accordance with law. The action must be taken within one month of the service of the copy of order of this Court on the Secretary of the College concerned. 6. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.