JUDGMENT : Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J. Re: I.A. No. 7098 of 2018 Heard Shri Lalit Kishore, learned Senior Advocate for the appellants and Shri Mrigank Mauli, for the respondent petitioner. 2. The appeal is reported to be delayed by 127 days. 3. We have considered the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application and we find that sufficient cause has been shown to condone the delay in filing the appeal. The delay is condoned and the appeal shall be treated to be within time. 4. I.A. No. 7098 of 2018 stands allowed accordingly. Re: L.P.A. No. 1301 of 2018 The Bihar Public Service Commission has come up in appeal assailing the judgment dated 3rd April, 2018 of a learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 11397 of 2017, whereby the appellant Commission has been directed to prepare a waitlist in terms of Clause 5.7 of the 2014 Statutes of the University relating to the appointment on the post of Assistant Professor. The Statutes have been enforced under a notification issued by His Excellency the Chancellor dated 11th of September, 2014. 2. The procedure of appointment is also provided therein which, inter alia, provides for a selection process prescribing that the Commission shall prepare a merit-list in order of the preference furnished by the candidates on the basis of the vacancies and reservation roster and shall send the recommendation to the Appointing Officer of the University. The Appointing Officer shall in turn seek the option of the candidates in a transparent manner and issue letters of appointment based on merit, preference, vacancy and roster. 3. The merit-list prepared by the Commission is valid for one year from the date of the issuance as per Statute 5.6. It is not in dispute that the merit-list prepared by the Commission in the present case is dated 13th of December, 2016. The validity being one year, the same would have obviously lasted till 12th of December, 2017. Statute 7 provides that the appointment letter issued to a selected candidate has to mention the time period of joining and if a candidate requests for extension up to six months, the same can also be considered allowing him to join by the extended date. If the selected candidate fails to join his post, his candidature shall be deemed to be cancelled. 4. If the selected candidate fails to join his post, his candidature shall be deemed to be cancelled. 4. Now comes the provision which has been made the basis of the claim by the respondent-petitioners, namely, Clause 5.7, which is extracted hereinundeer:- “5.7. There shall be at least 2 names in the waiting list against each subject. The validity of the waiting list must not be more than 6 months.” 5. It is the contention of the respondent-petitioner that six candidates in the General Category (Unreserved Category) had not joined and, therefore, there were seats available to be offered to them who were next in merit in the said category. However, the Commission did not prepare the wait-list against the subject concerned, which in the present case is Philosophy. The Commission in turn appears to have taken a stand that it was not possible to prepare a wait-list keeping in view the applicability of the rules of reservations and the roster point as also the distribution of posts University-wise. The decision so taken by the Commission in its meeting held on 4th of December, 2015 has been placed on record and the relevant part is extracted hereinunder:- ^^fcgkj ds fo'ofo|ky;ksa esa f'k{kdksa ¼lgk;d Ákpk;Z½ ds in ij fu;qfDr gsrq ifjfu;e 2014 dh dafMdk 5-7 esa ;g Áko/kku fd;k x;k gS fd ÁR;sd fo"k; esa nks mEehnokjksa dh Árh{kk lwph Hkh vk;ksx }kjk rS;kj dh tk;sxh tks N% eghus rd oS/k jgsxkA bl lEcU/k esa lE;d fopkjksijkUr vk;ksx }kjk fu.kZ; fy;k x;k fd vkj{k.k dksfVokj ,oa fo'ofo|ky;okj vkoaVu dh ÁfØ;k ds vuqlkj vk;ksx }kjk Árh{kk lwph cukuk laHko ugha gSA** 6. This stand taken by the Commission has been rejected by the learned Single Judge describing the same to be absurd on the principle that if the Statute requires the preparation of wait-list in a particular manner, then the said procedure or manner cannot be avoided and the Commission has to act in that manner alone for which reliance has been placed on certain judgments, as referred to in the impugned judgment. 7. 7. Learned senior counsel for the Commission Shri Lalit Kishore submits that the conclusion drawn by the learned Single Judge is not based on a rational analysis, inasmuch as, the said provision for preparation of a wait-list cannot be harmonized or executed keeping in view the large number of vacancies and the posts in different subjects and the different categories of reservation as well as the different Institutions for which selections have to be made. He submits that in the subject of Philosophy, which is presently in dispute, there were 134 vacancies, against which 68 candidates have been selected in the un-reserved category, 21 in the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes Category, 25 in the Extremely Backward Caste Category and 16 in the Backward Caste Category. It is, therefore, submitted that in view of the aforesaid break-up it is impossible to provide for wait-list of two candidates in the subject of Philosophy, inasmuch as, the outer limit fixed in Statute 5.7 is of only two names and not beyond that. It would, therefore, be impossible to give two names for six different categories. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent-petitioner Shri Mrigank Mauli, however, submits that if there were 134 vacancies then there was a possibility of two more names at Serial No. 135 and 136 to be considered for being placed in the wait-list or even otherwise two names in each of the categories could have been sorted out in order to meet any exigency if the posts were vacant in the concerned category. 9. We have considered the submissions raised and this, therefore, calls for an interpretation of and the practical application of Statute 5.7 which states that there shall be at least two names in the wait-list. There is no outer limit indicated. The mandate, therefore, in the aforesaid statute is clear, and the Commission has also to undertake selections under the same Statute, but the question is can the said wait-list be prepared as suggested on behalf of the respondent-petitioners. We do not find any such consideration by the learned Single Judge as to the manner in which the said exercise deserves to be undertaken by the Bihar Public Service Commission. We do not find any such consideration by the learned Single Judge as to the manner in which the said exercise deserves to be undertaken by the Bihar Public Service Commission. For this, in the event of such a dispute pertaining to interpretation of the Statutes, the power vests with the Hon’ble Chancellor himself to render an opinion on the issue of the applicability and the preparation of the wait-list given the circumstances of the case or even otherwise for holding of any future selections. One has also to consider the applicability of the date of joining of the selected candidate and the availability of the wait-list, the period whereof has been limited upto six months. Consequently, as to when would this period of six months commence running, is also a grey area which is not clarified in the Statutes. All this material, therefore, in our opinion, deserve to be brought to the notice of the Hon’ble Chancellor who can resolve the same after taking notice of the various Statutes and also the contention of the Commission about the impracticability of its execution. 10. We, therefore, do not find at this stage any justification for this Court to have issued a mandamus directing the Commission to prepare a wait-list without there being any interpretation about the manner and mode in which the said wait-list can be prepared keeping in view all the factors that have been pointed out by the Commission. 11. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment dated 3rd of April, 2018 is set aside with liberty to the respondent-petitioners to represent the matter before His Excellency the Chancellor in relation to the aforesaid clause of preparation of wait-list as per Statute 5.7 and in the event such a representation is made, we hope and expect that the office of the Chancellor shall take up the matter expeditiously and dispose of the same as early as possible, preferably within two months of the date of presentation of a representation and issue necessary directions keeping in view the aforesaid issue having been raised which is not only concerned with the present dispute but may also arise in future. 12. The Letters Patent Appeal stands allowed with the aforesaid observation.