JUDGMENT : PRAMATH PATNAIK, J. 1. In the instant writ application, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs: (a).For quashing office order as contained in memo dated 16.09.2005 whereby the petitioner has been shown to be absorbed on the post of Peon since 01.05.1986; (b).For issuance of writ of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to absorb the petitioner in Grade III post taking into consideration that the petitioner is working since 1979 in Grade III post and his service has been regularized by the Committee w.e.f 01.04.1983 and further he has been working against the sanctioned and vacant post of Grade III before the cut off date i.e. 30.04.1986 pursuant to the report of Justice S.C. Agarwal Committee. (c).For direction upon the respondents to pay the arrears of salary, which is due upon the respondents due to difference of the Grade. During pendency of writ application, the petitioner by way of filing I.A. No. 2166 of 2013, the petitioner has sought for amendment in the prayer portion of the writ application, to the effect that: (d)For direction upon the respondents to pay salary of the petitioner w.e.f June 2011 till date, which was stopped by the respondents-authorities without issuance of any show cause notice; The said Interlocutory application has been heard along with the instant writ application. 2. The facts, as delineated in the writ application, in brief is that initially the petitioner was appointed on 08.12.1979 by the Governing Body of Markham College of Commerce, Hazaribagh as Store Keeper i.e. Grade III post and his services was regularized on the said post w.e.f. 01.04.1983 vide letter dated 10.07.1983. It has further been averred that altogether 37 affiliated colleges were converted into constituent college along with Markham College of Commerce, Hazaribagh in the year 1986 in which the petitioner was working. It has further been averred that matter of absorption of about 4000 employees working on teaching and non-teaching posts in colleges affiliated to various university, which were made constituent as per the provision of Bihar University Act, 1976 came up before the Hon’ble Patna High Court and the matter went up-to Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 6098 of 1997, in which, a High Power Commission under the chairmanship of Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.C. Agarwal, retired Judge of Supreme Court of India, was constituted, which submitted its report before the Hon’ble Court and the same was accepted. Justice S.C. Agarwal, retired Judge of Supreme Court of India, was constituted, which submitted its report before the Hon’ble Court and the same was accepted. It has further been submitted that in terms of the reference in particular reference no. 4, the name of the petitioner finds place in list no. (i) i.e. list of nonteaching staff working against sanctioned post prior to 30.04.1986 and for the Markham College of Commerce, Hazaribagh, his name was found at serial no. 8 as Store Keeper and shown to have been working against sanctioned post of Store Keeper from the initial date of joining i.e. 10.12.1979. 3. It has further been submitted that petitioner along with other Grade III employees was working in Grade III post and receiving salary till February, 2007 but all of a sudden from March, 2007 his salary was lowered down, against which, the petitioner represented before the authorities on 25.04.2007 but it did not evoke any response. However, in the year 2011, the petitioner came to learn that in the year 2005 vide order dated 16.09.2005 issued under the signature of respondent no. 5-the Registrar, Vinoba Bhave University the petitioner has been shown to be absorbed on the post of Peon i.e. Grade IV since 01.05.1986, which is impugned in this case. 4. Heard Mr. Saurabh Arun, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. R.K. Shahi, A.C to learned A.A.G for the respondents-State and Ms. Indrani Sen Choudhary, learned counsel for the respondents- University. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the name of the petitioner finds figure at serial no. 8 of Annexure IV (B), so far it relates to Markham College of Commerce, Hazaribagh as nonteaching staff, who are found eligible for absorption in the report of Hon’ble S.C. Agarwal Commission and the same has been accepted by Hon’ble Apex Court. Hence, the respondents are duty bound to comply the direction/order passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 6098 of 1997 and action of the respondents not to consider the recommendation of S.C. Agarwal Commission is illegal. Hence, the respondents are duty bound to comply the direction/order passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 6098 of 1997 and action of the respondents not to consider the recommendation of S.C. Agarwal Commission is illegal. Referring to order dated 20.03.2012 passed in L.P.A. No. 339 of 2011, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this Hon’ble Court taking into consideration the fact that report of the commission has already been accepted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court after rejecting all the specific objections, hence the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is binding upon the respondents. 6. So far impugned order is concerned, the petitioner has neither been issued any show cause notice or given opportunity of hearing to explain his position prior to issuance of impugned order dated 16.09.2005, which is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India; hence is liable to be set aside. Even otherwise, the respondents did not act on the impugned order for two years and in the year 2007 they started to pay salary of the Grade IV. So far claim of the respondents-University that since the petitioner did not possess the matriculation certificate, he is not eligible to be absorbed against Class III posts, it has been submitted that at the time of initial appointment on 08.12.1979 the petitioner submitted the testimonials in original, which was in custody of the University and in spite of repeated requests, the original documents were not returned to the petitioner. However, immediately after coming to know the ground for reversion of post from III to Grade IV for absence of matriculation certificate, the petitioner obtained the second copy of the same from the Central Board of Higher Education, copy of which has been annexed as Annexure 11 to the reply to counter affidavit. 7. It has further been averred that after filing the instant writ application, from the year 2011 the respondents have stopped salary of the petitioner, which the petitioner has challenged by way of filing I.A. No. 2166 of 2013. In this regard, it has been submitted that without issuance of any show cause notice or assigning reason the respondents withhold the salary w.e.f June, 2011, which is violative of principles of substantial natural justice; hence the action of the respondents in not giving the salary to the petitioner is illegal; void and without jurisdiction. 8. In this regard, it has been submitted that without issuance of any show cause notice or assigning reason the respondents withhold the salary w.e.f June, 2011, which is violative of principles of substantial natural justice; hence the action of the respondents in not giving the salary to the petitioner is illegal; void and without jurisdiction. 8. As against this, learned counsel for the respondents- University submitted that admittedly the petitioner was working in Grade III Post (Store Keeper) in Markham College of Commerce, Hazaribagh and his name was also appearing in list (i) i.e. list of non-teaching staff of the report of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Agarwal Commission, but, from bare perusal of list, it does appear that the appointment of the petitioner was made without proper advertisement and he was not possessing the requisite qualification; hence in the column “whether entitled for absorption”, it is mentioned “No”. It has further been submitted that during the course of processing for absorption by the University as per direction given by Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.C. Agrawal, it was found that since the petitioner was not possessing the Matriculation Certificate; as such in the notification of the University dated 12.03.2005, it has specifically been indicated against the name of the petitioner towards absorption column as “Pending”, which the petitioner did not demur. In this regard, it has further been averred that the petitioner through the then Principal of the college on 11.09.2005 was informed to remain present before the Vice-chancellor, Pro Vice-Chancellor and Registrar along with all relevant document including educational certificate. Accordingly, he appeared on 12.09.2005 but did not produce the Matriculation Certificate and thereafter also he was afforded opportunity to produce the Matriculation Certificate but he failed to do so. It has further been submitted that one Sri Sushant Kumar Sinha had made a complaint before His Excellency the Hon’ble Governor on 13.12.2003 regarding the continuance of service of the petitioner in Grade III as he does not possess the requisite qualification. A letter was received by the University from the Governor’s Secretariat vide letter dated 12.01.2004 for taking appropriate action. Accordingly, a three-member committee was constituted, who after hearing the parties decided on 12.09.2005 that the petitioner was a non-matriculate and the decision was duly received by the petitioner but the petitioner never challenged the same at any point of time. A letter was received by the University from the Governor’s Secretariat vide letter dated 12.01.2004 for taking appropriate action. Accordingly, a three-member committee was constituted, who after hearing the parties decided on 12.09.2005 that the petitioner was a non-matriculate and the decision was duly received by the petitioner but the petitioner never challenged the same at any point of time. Considering the aforesaid facts, the Viaffording full opportunity to the petitioner, which was duly communicated to the petitioner but he chose not to challenge the same immediately thereafter and after six years in the year 2011 he approached this Court. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents-University referring to Annexure D Series to counter affidavit dated 11.09.2012 submitted that after filing of the instant writ application, the petitioner declined to work on Grade IV post and after putting his signature on attendance register, he refused to work in the college, hence after issuing show cause notice, his salary was stopped w.e.f June, 2011 on the cardinal principal of ‘No Work No Pay”. 10. So far 2nd Copy of Certificate of Passing of High School Examination in 1972 as Private Candidate from Central Board of Higher Education, Annexed as Annexure 11 by the petitioner, is concerned, it has been submitted with vehemence that it is a forged document as the institution itself came into existence in the year 1989 and the certificate produced by the petitioner is of the year 1972. Besides, the organization ‘The Central Board of Higher Education, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi is a fake institution and from time to time the University gets warning information regarding the fake institutions. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted with vehemence that the petitioner in order to dupe and mislead the University as well as this Hon’ble Court annexed said fake and forged certificate; hence with leave of this Court the University intends to lodge criminal case against the petitioner. 11. After bestowing my anxious consideration to the pleadings available on record, it is admitted fact that the petitioner initially joined the Markham College of Commerce, Hazaribagh on the post of store-keeper on 10.12.1979 his services was regularized on the said post w.e.f 01.04.1983 vide letter dated 10.07.1983 by the Managing Committee of the college, as evident from Annexure 2 to the writ application. However, pursuant to dispute involving absorption of about 400 employees working on teaching and nonteaching posts in different college, including the college in which the petitioner was working; the matter went up-to Hon’ble Apex Court. While considering the issue and finding the complexity in the subject of absorption of large number of employees of various universities running in the State of Bihar, Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6098 of 1997 vide order dated 12.10.2001 constituted one man Commission of Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.C. Agrawal, retired Judge of Supreme Court to go into the various controversies and disputes with regard to absorption of employees. Pursuant thereto, the Commission submitted its report on 19.12.2003 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which was accepted the Hon’ble Supreme Court. At this juncture, it would be apt to mention here that the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in the matter of deciding the question of validity of appointment of affiliated colleges and absorption of those appointees in constituent colleges, the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon vests in the university in view of Section 4(1)(14) of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that …. “Decision on absorption of the existing teaching and non-teaching staff of the affiliated colleges, which are taken over as constituent colleges, is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the universities concerned. Decision in individual cases, with due regard to the qualification of each employee and corresponding statute applicable at the relevant time prescribing qualification, if any, for the teaching and non-teaching post, is required to be taken by the university based on the findings of the Enquiry Commission and in the light of legal position explained in the present judgment.” 12. Further, it would be apt to reproduce the relevant extracts of report of Commission (Annexure 4 to the writ application), on which much emphasis has been laid by learned counsel respondents-University, so far it relates to petitioner and as claimed by the petitioner that his name was found in the list (i) of non-teaching staff: “Name of the Post: Store Keeper Name of the Employee : Rao Ranjeet Singh Nature of Post Held Sanctioned/Unsanctioned/Recommended : Sanctioned Date of Aptt./Joining: 10.12.1979 Whether appointment was made through proper advertisement : N/A Whether possess requisite qualification on the date of appointment: No Whether Entitled for absorption : No” 13. In the backdrop of aforesaid facts and legal proposition, the respondents-University in the notification dated 12.03.2005, against the name of the petitioner towards absorption column it has been shown as “Pending” and the petitioner was directed to produce the matriculation certificate, which is the minimum educational qualification for the post in question but he failed to produce the same. During pendency of the writ application though the petitioner has annexed the matriculation certificate as Annexure 11 but that has highly been disputed by the respondents-authorities stating to be fake and forged. Under such circumstances, I am of the considered view that impugned order dated 16.09.2005 whereby the petitioner has been absorbed on the post of Class IV post does not warrant interference by this Court, as per the provisions contained in Universities Act and direction contained in aforesaid Civil Appeal. 14. So far prayer of the petitioner made in I.A. No. 2166 of 2013for direction upon the respondents to pay salary of the petitioner w.e.f June 2011 till date, is concerned, it has been averred by the respondents that petitioner is not turning up to work on Grade IV post; I find no merit in the prayer, hence the same needs no warrant interference by this Court. 15. Accordingly, writ application being devoid of any merit is dismissed. Consequently, I.A. No. 2166 of 2013 stands disposed of. 16. Before parting with this order, it is made clear that respondents-University is at liberty to proceed legally against the petitioner for producing forged and fake matriculation certificate, as alleged by the respondents.