JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J. In the captioned writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing portion of order as contained in memo dated 27.06.2012 whereby it has been held that during the period 23.03.1985 to 30.04.1986, there was no concurrence of the College Service Commission in the appointment of the petitioner; and for quashing/modifying part of letter dated 18.05.2007 whereby, the respondents have entered wrong date of substantive appointment of the petitioner and accordingly prayer has been made to rectify the wrong committed with regard to the date of substantive appointment. Further prayer has been made for direction upon the respondents to consider and pass appropriate order with regard to promotion of the petitioner to the post of Reader under 10 years Time Bound Promotion Statute and pay arrears of salary and grant all consequential benefits. 2. The facts, as disclosed in the writ application, in brief, is that petitioner was appointed Lecturer of Mathematics against the sanctioned post after following due process of appointment in Chas College, Chas under Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribag and accordingly he joined on the same post on 14.02.1984. After passage of time, vide notification dated 04.08.1998 issued by the Registrar, Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribag, the services of the petitioner was regularized from the date of his joining and he was extended all the benefits of regular lecturer. It has further been submitted that the matter relating to absorption of teaching and non-teaching employees of newly converted 4th phase constituent colleges was agitated by the Union of the employee by filing C.W.J.C No. 4021 of 1995 and the matter finally went up-to the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6098 of 1998, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court set up a one-man Committee of Retired Supreme Court Judge i.e. Hon'ble Justice S.C Agrawal Commission to enquire into the matter and accepting the report of Hon'ble Agrawal Commission, final judgment vide order dated 12.10.2004 was delivered in Civil Appeal No. 6098 of 1997. It has further been submitted that Hon'ble S.C. Agrawal Commission in his report vide Annexure IVA has given a list of teaching employees, who were eligible to be considered for absorption, wherein the name of the petitioner finds place at serial no. It has further been submitted that Hon'ble S.C. Agrawal Commission in his report vide Annexure IVA has given a list of teaching employees, who were eligible to be considered for absorption, wherein the name of the petitioner finds place at serial no. 2 in the Department of Mathematics in the concerned College i.e. Chas College, Chas showing his date of appointment as 07.02.1984 and also showing him eligible for absorption from 07.02.1984. In the light of order dated 12.10.2004 passed in Civil Appeal No. 6098 of 1997, the respondent-University issued formal order of absorption of petitioner vide memo dated 16.09.2005, but the H.R.D. Department while carrying out the pay-fixation vide letter 18.05.2007 has wrongly fixed 30.04.1986 as substantive date of appointment instead of 14.02.1984. Aggrieved thereof the petitioner filed his objection before the department but it did not evoke any response. It has further been submitted that even the Registrar, Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribag vide letter dated 25.01.2008 also wrote letter to Director, H.R.D. Department, Government of Jharkhand regarding rectification of anomaly made in pay-fixation but even then the Department turned deaf ear. Left with no option, the petitioner along with other similarly situated persons moved this Court by filing W.P. (S) No. 5115 of 2008, which was disposed of vide order dated 16.04.2012 with a direction to Secretary, H.R.D. Department, Government of Jharkhand to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of clarification made by the respondent-University for correction of date of absorption of the petitioner and also subsequent promotion and pass appropriate order, but the Director, H.R.D. Department instead of removing the anomaly travelled beyond the issue in question passed impugned order dated 27.06.2012 whereby it has been held that during the period 23.03.1985 to 30.04.1986, there was no concurrence of the College Service Commission in the appointment of the petitioner. 3. Heard Mr. Rupesh Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned G.A for the respondents-State as also Mr. Mithilesh Singh, learned counsel for the respondents-University. 4. Mr. 3. Heard Mr. Rupesh Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned G.A for the respondents-State as also Mr. Mithilesh Singh, learned counsel for the respondents-University. 4. Mr. Rupesh Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on bare perusal of Annexure III/A and IV/A of the report of Hon'ble S.C. Agrawal Commission, basing on which final judgment was delivered in Civil Appeal No. 6098 of 1997, it is quite evident that the petitioner's date of appointment is 07.02.1984 and the petitioner has been working since the date of conversion against the sanctioned post and further petitioner has been shown eligible to be considered for absorption w.e.f 07.02.1984. It has further been submitted that till date the report of Hon'ble S.C. Agrawal Commission is full and final and respondent no. 3 has no authority to make any alteration or pass any order deviating from the view taken by the Hon'ble Agrawal Commission. It has further been submitted that in view of the illegal date of substantive appointment being fixed by H.R.D. Department, Government of Jharkhand, the prospects of promotion of the petitioner to the post of reader in the light of the statute as contained in letter dated 24.12.1986 and prevalent prior to 23.09.1995 and applicable to teachers fulfilling 10 years of service prior to 23.09.1995 is being adversely affected. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the respondent-State in the case of Sri D.P. Singh has considered his case and has made rectification in the provisional pay-fixation considering his date of substantial appointment but the petitioner has been subjected to hostile discrimination. Learned counsel for the petitioner has emphatically submitted that in a same and similar case, in W.P. (S) No. 7555 of 2012, this Hon'ble Court has been pleased to allow the writ petition by quashing the part of impugned order as contained in memo dated 27.06.2012, whereby it has been held that during the period 23.03.1985 to 30.04.1986 there was no concurrence of the College Service Commission in the appointment of the petitioner. 6. 6. As against this, learned counsel for the respondents-State submitted that as per Annexure IV A of Hon'ble Agrawal Commission report, the petitioner was appointed by the governing body of the college without getting the recommendation of the College Service Commission, which is essential for the appointment of a Teacher in a college in the light of Section 57 and 58 of the Jharkhand State University, Act, 2000 and Section 9 and 10 of the Bihar State College Service Commission Act, 1976. It has further been submitted that as per proviso of Section II of the Bihar College Service Commission Act, 1976 any appointment of a College teacher exceeding six months, the recommendation of the Bihar College Service Commission was a must and for want of which, the appointment is deemed to be terminated; hence the services of the petitioner cannot be accepted as continuous prior to 30.04.1986 i.e. the date of conversion of the College as constituent unit of University. 7. Mr. Mithilesh Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-University submitted that in compliance of order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6098 of 1997, the services of the petitioner was absorbed as Lecturer. After absorption, the University provisionally fixed the salary of the petitioner from the date of his absorption and sent the same to the Director, H.R.D. Department, Government of Jharkhand for its approval. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and on perusal of the record, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has been able to make out a case for interference for the following facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements: (i) The unified State of Bihar took a decision to convert some affiliated colleges into Constituent Units in 4th Phase, which includes Chas College, Chas where the petitioner is stated to have been working. But complaints were received regarding surreptitious entry of some employees in connivance with Governing Bodies of said college, by making manipulation in the records of the University, which necessitated State Government to set up a vigilance enquiry. But complaints were received regarding surreptitious entry of some employees in connivance with Governing Bodies of said college, by making manipulation in the records of the University, which necessitated State Government to set up a vigilance enquiry. In the meantime, the Union of the aggrieved employees, under the banner of “Bihar Rajya Mahavidyalaya Sikshak Ewan Shiksheketar Sangh” knocked the door of writ Court by filing C.W.J.C No. 4021 of 1995 which was disposed of vide order dated 31.01.1997 directing the concerned Universities to take steps under sub-section (14) of Section 4 of the Bihar Universities Act in respect of regularization of services of the employee, which were made constituent in the 4th phase. Aggrieved thereof, the State moved before the Hon'ble Apex Court by filing Civil Appeal No. 6098 of 1997, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court constituted a one man committee of Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.C. Agrawal (retired Judge of Hon'ble Supreme Court) for making a detailed enquiry with specific reference. In the light of terms of reference, the Commission submitted its report before Hon'ble Supreme Court mentioning therein list of sanctioned and recommended posts. Basing on such report, the Hon'ble Apex Court passed the final order dated 12.10.2004 in the case of State of Bihar & Ors Vs. Bihar Rajya M.S.E.S.K.K Mahasangh & Ors as reported in (2005) 9 SCC 129 , accepting the report of the Commission and rejecting all the objections raised against the said report. (ii) From the pleadings available on record, it further appears that Hon'ble S.C. Agrawal Commission in his report vide Annexure IVA has given a list of teaching employees, who were eligible to be considered for absorption, wherein the name of the petitioner finds place at serial no. 2 in the Department of Mathematics in the concerned College i.e. Chas College, Chas showing his date of appointment as 07.02.1984 and also eligible for absorption from 07.02.1984; and this facts has not been denied by the respondents-State. (iii) Admittedly, the State has got wide power under Section 35 of the Act but when the University is taking over the management of any college and thereby if it absorbs any staff/employee/teacher under Section 4(1)(14) of the Act, the Government cannot exercise power under Section 35 of the Act denying the absorption or questioning absorption. (iii) Admittedly, the State has got wide power under Section 35 of the Act but when the University is taking over the management of any college and thereby if it absorbs any staff/employee/teacher under Section 4(1)(14) of the Act, the Government cannot exercise power under Section 35 of the Act denying the absorption or questioning absorption. Views and application of these Sections has been elaborately dealt with by Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Bihar & Ors Vs. Bihar Rajya M.S.E.S.K.K Mahasangh & Ors in particular at paragraphs 53 and 54, for ready reference, the same are reproduced herein below: “53.We do not consider it necessary to express any final opinion as to whether the provision of “prior approval” contained in Section 35 for creation of posts and appointments in affiliated college is mandatory or directory. For the purpose of this batch of cases, it is sufficient for us to opine that clause (14) of Section 4(1) operates in an exclusive field of considering and taking decision on absorption of staff appointed regularly or otherwise in an institution including an affiliated or non-affiliated college which is to be taken over as “constituent college” under a formal agreement reached between the university and the Governing Body of that college. In the process of taking over of management, assets, liabilities and staff of the affiliated or non-affiliated college, the university has to take a decision with regard to absorption of existing staff. In this process of consideration for absorption, it may have regard to the provisions of the Act including observance of the provisions of Section 35 of the Act. In the matter of absorbing staff of colleges taken over, any alleged non-observance of alleged mandatory provision of obtaining prior approval under Section 35, before creation of posts and appointments to them, would not be an impediment in the way of the university to permit absorption of an employee working against a post. It may for the above purpose seek ex post facto approval of the State Government. The decision of the Government contained in its communication dated 18-12-1989 itself allows consideration of absorption of the members of the staff working against post for which sanction for creation of posts was pending with the State Government on recommendations of the university. It may for the above purpose seek ex post facto approval of the State Government. The decision of the Government contained in its communication dated 18-12-1989 itself allows consideration of absorption of the members of the staff working against post for which sanction for creation of posts was pending with the State Government on recommendations of the university. We do not find any conflict in the provisions of Section 4(1)(14) and Section 35, although each contains a non obstante clause. They intend to override each other in the field exclusively assigned to each. Appointments in affiliated college in normal circumstances have to be with prior approval of the State Government in accordance with Section 35 but subject-matter of absorption of services of staff taken over shall be within exclusive jurisdiction of the university concerned in accordance with Section 4(1)(14) of the Act. 54. The two non obstante clauses with slightly different wordings have thus to be harmoniously construed so as to fulfil the object of each one of them. On examination of the scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions, we find that Section 35, requiring prior sanction of the State Government for creation of posts and appointments, applies to all affiliated colleges. Compared with Section 35, Section 4(1)(14) has limited operation at a stage when a university enters into an agreement with the management or Governing Bodies of private institutions affiliated or non-affiliated for taking over its management, assets, liabilities and staff. The effect of non obstante clause in Section 4(1)(14) is that the matter of absorption of staff of such institution/college proposed to be taken over, would be within the sole power and jurisdiction of the university concerned within whose jurisdiction the affiliated college or institution falls. On the matter of absorption of staff of taken-over institutions, Section 35 requiring prior sanction or approval of the State Government for creation of posts and appointment, would not be a constraint on the power of the university. It is a different thing that the university in considering absorption of the staff of institution taken over may give due consideration to the legality/regularity or otherwise of a particular appointment but it would not be inhibited by the absence of prior sanction or approval of the State as contemplated in Section 35 of the Act. It is a different thing that the university in considering absorption of the staff of institution taken over may give due consideration to the legality/regularity or otherwise of a particular appointment but it would not be inhibited by the absence of prior sanction or approval of the State as contemplated in Section 35 of the Act. This is how the two non-obstante clauses have to be harmoniously construed and applied as giving overriding effect to each and restrict their operation within exclusive field assigned to each. In the matter of creation of posts and appointments in affiliated colleges in normal circumstances, requirement of prior sanction or approval of the State Government, as contained in Section 35, is not dispensed with because of the contrary provision contained in Section 4(1)(14) and the latter section is restricted in its operation to absorption of staff of a taken-over institution by the university.” (iii) Moreover, in the same and similar case, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 18.12.2007 in W.P. (S) No. 7555 of 2012 and W.P. (S) No. 888 of 2015 has decided the issue and it appears that case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the law laid down in those cases. 9. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements, the portion of order as contained in memo dated 27.06.2012 whereby it has been held that during the period 23.03.1985 to 30.04.1986, there was no concurrence of the College Service Commission in the appointment of the petitioner; and part of letter dated 18.05.2007 whereby the respondents have entered wrong date of substantive appointment of the petitioner are hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents, in particular, respondent no. 3 is directed to consider and pass appropriate order with regard to promotion of the petitioner to the post of Reader under 10 years Time Bound Promotion Statute and pay arrears of salary and grant all consequential benefits after rectifying the date of substantive appointment of the petitioner. 10. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands allowed.