JUDGMENT : Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. 1. The instant appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the order dated 21.12.2021 passed in W.P(S) No.1850 of 2018 whereby and whereunder the learned writ Court has directed the appellant-University to consider the case of the petitioner and pass an appropriate order regarding fixation of date of absorption from the date of acquiring eligibility, i.e., 05.12.1987. 2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the memo of appeal needs to refer herein as under: (i) That S.J.S.N College, Garhwa became a constituent college of Ranchi University on 31.03.1987. The writ petitioner was appointed as Lecturer on 22.02.1986 on the unsanctioned 5 th post in the Department of Hindi in SJSN College, Garhwa. (ii) That on 22.02.1986 the petitioner did not have the basic minimum qualification/ eligibility to be appointed as a University teacher. The petitioner acquired the minimum eligibility condition for appointment/absorption/regularization as Lecturer on 05.12.1987. (iii) That on 05.12.1987 the petitioner acquired the basic minimum qualification of a high second class degree in post graduation to be eligible for consideration to be appointed/ absorbed/ regularized as a University Teacher. Accordingly, the petitioner was absorbed on 05.08.2005 with effect from01.06.2003. (iv) That Justice (Retd.) S.C. Agrawal Commission was constituted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India vide its order dated 12.10.2001 in the matter of “ State of Bihar & Ors. V. Bihar Rajya MSESKK Mahasangh & Ors.” reported in (2005) 9 SCC 129 to give its recommendations on different points including the issue of regularization/absorption of teachers working in 40 affiliated colleges which had been made constituent units in the then undivided Bihar including S.J.S.N.College, Garhwa. 3. It is evident from the factual aspect that the writ petitioner was appointed and joined the post of lecturer in Hindi Department on 22.2.1986 in S.J.S.N College, Garhwa, under the jurisdiction of Ranchi University, now Nilamber-Pitambar University, Palamau. 4. The writ petitioner has been taken under the regular establishment w.e.f. 01.06.2003. 5. 3. It is evident from the factual aspect that the writ petitioner was appointed and joined the post of lecturer in Hindi Department on 22.2.1986 in S.J.S.N College, Garhwa, under the jurisdiction of Ranchi University, now Nilamber-Pitambar University, Palamau. 4. The writ petitioner has been taken under the regular establishment w.e.f. 01.06.2003. 5. The writ petitioner being not satisfied with the decision taken by the appellant-University for his absorption w.e.f. 1.06.2003 and not w.e.f. 05.12.1987 even though he was eligible on, all count, for inducting in service under the regular establishment has preferred a writ petition being W.P(S) No.1850 of 2018 praying therein for quashing of the notification contained in Memo No. 317/05 dated 05.08.2005 by which the service of the petitioner was absorbed w.e.f. 01.06.2003 instead of 05.12.1987, even though the writ petitioner has attained the eligibility as per the recommendation of Justice S.C. Agrawal Committee. 6. The learned writ Court, has come to the conclusion by taking into consideration the recommendation of Justice S.C. Agrawal Committee having been accepted by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “State of Bihar & Ors. V. Bihar Rajya MSESKK Mahasangh & Ors.” (Supra) and considering eligibility of the writ petitioner available w.e.f. 05.12.1987 has quashed the order dated 05.08.2005 with a direction to absorb the petitioner in service w.e.f. 05.12.1987. 7. The said order is under challenge by preferring the present appeal by the appellant-Nilamber Pitambar University. Argument on behalf of the appellant-University: 8. Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-University has taken the following grounds in assailing the order passed by the learned writ Court: (i) It has been contended that the learned Single Judge has not appreciated the consideration given by the subsequent Committee constituted by the Hon’ble Apex Court which was headed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice late S.B. Sinha wherein the fact about holding the eligibility has been found to suffer from an error. (ii) It has been contended that the learned Single Judge has also relied upon Justice S.C Agrawal Committee report, but even on the basis of the S.C Agrawal Committee report the case of the present writ petitioner is not fit to be absorbed w.e.f. 05.12.1987 reason being that there were altogether four sanctioned posts in the Hindi faculty and all posts were filled up as on 05.12.1987. (iii) The writ petitioner was working against fifth posts, not sanctioned, therefore, the writ petitioner cannot be absorbed w.e.f. 05.12.1987 even though he has eligibility as on 05.12.1987 due to non- availability of the sanctioned post as on 05.12.1987 and due to filling up of the entire sanctioned posts. (iv) The post fallen vacant on 01.06.2003 due to superannuation of Dr. Ram Naresh Pathak, and, as such, the writ petitioner has been absorbed in service w.e.f. 01.06.2003. But the learned Single Judge has not considered the issue of the non-availability of the sanctioned post as on 05.12.1987 and merely gone on the issue of eligibility. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Single Judge directing the University to absorb the writ petitioner w.e.f. 05.12.1987 cannot be said to be proper. (v) The learned Single Judge has also not appreciated the fact that the element of fraud has been found to be there as has been observed in the report of Justice S.B. Sinha (Retd.) Committee in misrepresenting the fact showing only on the basis of eligibility for absorption of the writ petitioner even though as on 05.12.1987 there was no sanctioned post available in Hindi faculty. (vi) The learned Single Judge has also not appreciated the fact that in absence of any sanctioned post there cannot be any absorption but without appreciating the aforesaid fact direction has been passed for absorption of the writ petitioner w.e.f.05.12.1987. (vii) The further ground has been taken that the entire fact has been brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge even the observation so made by late Justice S.B. Sinha Committee and there is no finding in the impugned order and, as such, the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, without taking into consideration the observation made in Justice S.B. Sinha Committee report, the direction so issued cannot be said to be proper. 9. Learned counsel based upon the aforesaid ground has contested the case by showing the error in the impugned order. Argument on behalf of the writ petitioner-respondent no.1: 10. Mr. 9. Learned counsel based upon the aforesaid ground has contested the case by showing the error in the impugned order. Argument on behalf of the writ petitioner-respondent no.1: 10. Mr. Shadab Eqbal, the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner-respondent no.1 herein has taken the following grounds in defending the impugned order: (i) The learned Single Judge has not erred in passing the impugned order, reason being, the learned Single Judge has gone into the report of Justice S.C Agrawal Committee wherein the name of the writ petitioner was find mentioned under the list of the recommended candidates, Annexure-IV A at Sl. No.4 (Hindi) and, as such, the learned Single Judge on consideration of the aforesaid fact since has passed the order, hence, the same cannot be said to suffer from an error. (ii) The ground has been taken that the learned Single Judge has gone into the eligibility and the writ petitioner since was having with the eligibility for absorption in service as on 05.12.1987, hence, the denial of the said benefit of absorption w.e.f. the date of eligibility has been considered to be improper. Therefore, the direction has been passed for absorption of the writ petitioner w.e.f. 05.12.1987 instead of 01.06.2003. (iii) The learned counsel has categorically relied upon recommendation made by Justice S.C Agrawal Committee which according to the learned counsel for the writ petitioner- respondent has been adopted, in entirety, by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Since the name of the writ petitioner is available in Annexure-IVA under the recommended list and, as such, it is incorrect on the part of the appellant-University to take the ground that the case of the writ petitioner for absorption w.e.f. 05.12.1987 is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 11. Learned counsel based upon the aforesaid ground has submitted that the impugned order therefore needs no interference. Analysis: 12. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order, as also the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “ State of Bihar & Ors. V. Bihar Rajya MSESKK Mahasangh & Ors.” (supra) 13. It is evident from the fact as has been referred hereinabove that the writ petitioner was appointed on 22.02.1986. V. Bihar Rajya MSESKK Mahasangh & Ors.” (supra) 13. It is evident from the fact as has been referred hereinabove that the writ petitioner was appointed on 22.02.1986. The issue of absorption has been taken into consideration by the Hon’ble Apex Court after the matter being travelled from Patna High Court in the case of “ State of Bihar & Ors. V. Bihar Rajya MSESKK Mahasangh & Ors.” (supra) . The Hon’ble Apex Court has constituted a Committee headed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.C. Agrawal (Retd.). The Committee has submitted its report. It is evident from the paragraph-73 of the said judgment that the following conclusion has been arrived at for acceptance of the same by the Hon’ble Apex Court which is being referred hereinbelow: “73. In view of this judgment and the directions made herein to the University to take a final decision based on the report of the enquiry commission, all the applications for impleadment as parties and objections filed to the enquiry report are rejected. It is for the University to take a final decision concerning the individual employees. For the same reason, no further orders are required on the Interlocutory applications seeking certain directions pending the appeal and for modification of earlier orders made. Other interlocutory applications also need no further directions or orders. They all stand disposed of. Conclusions : 1. The judgment of the High Court to the extent of the interpretation placed by it on the provisions of section 4(I)(14) and section 35 with the directions issued in paragraphs 24 to 26 therein, is hereby confirmed for the reasons recorded by us above. 2. The report of the commission of enquiry of Hon. Justice S. C. Agrawal [retired], is accepted and all objections filed against the said report are rejected. 3. The members of the staff in various affiliated colleges identified and named in list no. (i) being appointees against the sanctioned posts shall be absorbed and formal order to that effect shall be issued by the universities concerned. 4. The universities shall take a decision under section4(1)(14) of the Act in the matter of absorption of appointees named in list no. (i) being appointees against the sanctioned posts shall be absorbed and formal order to that effect shall be issued by the universities concerned. 4. The universities shall take a decision under section4(1)(14) of the Act in the matter of absorption of appointees named in list no. (ii) of the Report of the Commission, being appointees against posts for which recommendations were sent by the universities to the State up to the cut-off date in accordance with the decision of the State Government conveyed in its letter dated 19.8.1986 followed by letters dated 25.08.1986 and 12.06.1987. In considering the question of absorption of appointees named in list no. (ii) of the report of the Enquiry Commission, the universities concerned shall rely on the contents of the report of the enquiry commission and the present judgment of this Court. 5. The appointees mentioned in list no. (iii), being the appointees against posts for which recommendations were sent by the universities to the State Government after the cut- off date or those working against posts for which no recommendations were sent for approval of the State Government, have no right of being considered for absorption - whatever maybe the fortuitous circumstances or otherwise in the matter of not sending recommendations for sanction in their cases. The negative report of the enquiry commission with regard to list no. (iii) is accepted and the universities are directed to exclude all such appointees named in list no. (iii) from consideration for absorption. 6. A large number of objections to the Report of the Enquiry Commission filed before us by associations of employees and individuals pertain to the alleged lack of prescribed qualifications for the posts on which they are working. All those objectors have not been recommended for absorption in the report of the Enquiry Commission. (iii) from consideration for absorption. 6. A large number of objections to the Report of the Enquiry Commission filed before us by associations of employees and individuals pertain to the alleged lack of prescribed qualifications for the posts on which they are working. All those objectors have not been recommended for absorption in the report of the Enquiry Commission. Decision in individual cases, with due regard to the qualification of each employee and corresponding statute applicable at the relevant time prescribing qualifications, if any, for the teaching and non-teaching posts, shall be taken by the universities based on the findings in the report of Justice Agrawal Commission and in the light of the legal position explained above.” 14.It is evident from the Justice Agrawal Commission Report that three list have been prepared (i) under the head of Sanctioned Post, (ii) under the list of the recommended candidates for creation of post, and (iii) teachers who do not possess the requisite qualification on the date of appointment, but became eligible after the appointment. 15. So far as the issue of sanctioned post which is available in Annexure- I-A of the report altogether four posts have been shown to be there within the sanctioned strength, for ready reference the number of sanctioned post is being referred herein: SANCTIONED POSTS OF TEACHERS Annexure-IA Nature of posts subject-wise Order sanctioning the post subject-wise Total number of posts subject-wise Mar. 5 1980 Sept. 25 1981 Aug. 6 1985 Mar. 30 1987 Nov.13 1987 Nov.28 1987 Apr.30 1988 1.Principal Lecturers 1 1 1. History 1 - 1 2 4 4 - 12 2. Geography 1 - 1 1 4 1 - 8 3. Political science (Civics) 1 - 1 2 4 5 - 13 4. Philosophy (Logic) 1 - 1 3 - - - 5 5. Hindi 1 - 1 1 1 - - 4 6. English 1 - 1 2 - 3 - 7 7. Economics 1 - 1 2 4 - - 8 8. Urdu - 1 - 1 2 - - 4 9. Sanskrit - 1 - 2 1 - - 4 10. Physics - - - - 2 1 - 3 11. Chemistry - - - - 2 4 - 6 12. Botany - - - - 4 3 - 7 13. Zoology - - - - 2 2 - 4 14. Mathematics - - - - 3 2 - 5 15. Sanskrit - 1 - 2 1 - - 4 10. Physics - - - - 2 1 - 3 11. Chemistry - - - - 2 4 - 6 12. Botany - - - - 4 3 - 7 13. Zoology - - - - 2 2 - 4 14. Mathematics - - - - 3 2 - 5 15. Geology - - - - 1 - - 1 16. Anthropology - - - - 3 - - 3 17. Psychology - - - - 5 - 5 18. Commerce - - - - 9 2 - 11 19. Sociology - - - - - - 1 1 20. Ancient History - - - - - - 1 1 21. Labour & 22. Social welfare - - - - - - 1 1 TOTAL 8 2 7 16 51 27 3 114 16. Annexure-II A contains the list of the recommendation made by the University upto the cut-off date pending consideration before the State Government, for ready reference the extract of the Annexure-IIA is being quoted herein: Annexure-IIA (a) RECOMMENDATIONS MADE BY THE UNIVERSITY UPTO THE CUT OFF DATE PENDING CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE STATE GOVERNMENT NIL (b) PROPOSAL SUBMITTED BY THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATION PENDING CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE UNIVERSITY Nature of the Post Date of Letter Total number ofRecommended postssubjective Lecturers Jan.19 1987 Jan.20 1987 Jan.29 1987 March 24 1987 1. Psychology 1 (6th post) - - - 1 2. Hindi - 4 (5th to 8th ) - - 4 3.Sociology - - 2(3-1) - 2 4. Geology - - - 2(3-1) 2 Total 1 4 2 2 9 17. It is evident from the Annexure-III A that the following persons have been appointed in the Hindi faculty, i.e., (1) Dr. Ram Naresh Pathak at Sl. No.40, (2) Sri Subarn Mahto at Sl. No.41, (3) Sri Ghanshyam Pandey at Sl. No.42 and (4) Sri Baij Nath Roy at Sl. No.43. 18. Thus, these four persons had been shown to be appointed under the sanctioned strength. The name of the writ petitioner appears at Sl. No.44 in the category of post recommended up to the cut-off date, for ready reference the extract of the aforesaid tabular chart as available in Annexure-III A is being quoted herein: Annexure-III A TEACHERS WHO WERE WORKING ON THE DATE OF CONVERSION ARRANGED SUBJECT WISE 19. The name of the writ petitioner appears at Sl. No.44 in the category of post recommended up to the cut-off date, for ready reference the extract of the aforesaid tabular chart as available in Annexure-III A is being quoted herein: Annexure-III A TEACHERS WHO WERE WORKING ON THE DATE OF CONVERSION ARRANGED SUBJECT WISE 19. The sanctioned post since is four in numbers and which have been shown to be occupied by Sri Ram Naresh Pathak, Sri Subarn Mahto, Sri Ghanshyam Pandey and Sri Baij Nath Roy having been appointed on 20.07.1975, 26.07.1981, 25.06.1983 and 25.06.1985 against the sanctioned post, respectively. While, the writ petitioner had been appointed on 22.02.1986 under the category of post recommended upto the cut-off date. Therefore, all the four sanctioned posts have been occupied. The writ petitioner since was working in the Hindi faculty contrary to the sanctioned strength, however, in the post recommended up to the cut-off date. But the State Government has not recommended by creating the fifth post under the sanctioned strength as would be evident from Annexure-II A under the caption head recommendation made by the University up to the cut-off date pending consideration before the State Government has been shown to be NIL. Meaning thereby, the Government has not approved the recommendation by creating the fifth post said to be sanctioned one. 20. The said Annexures are the part of the Justice S.C. Agrawal Committee report. The said report has been accepted in entirety by the Hon’ble Apex Court as would be evident from paragraph-73 of the judgment passed in “ State of Bihar & Ors. V. Bihar Rajya MSESKK Mahasangh & Ors.” (supra). 21. It needs to refer herein that the dispute since was still subsisting therefore, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid case has consisted one another Committee headed by Justice S.B. Sinha (Retd.). The case of the other similarly situated person has also been taken in to consideration in CA No.6098/1997. 22. The occasion to make an application by claimant has been arisen on account of the constitution of subsequent commission headed by late Justice S.B. Sinha. The case of the other similarly situated person has also been taken in to consideration in CA No.6098/1997. 22. The occasion to make an application by claimant has been arisen on account of the constitution of subsequent commission headed by late Justice S.B. Sinha. The contention of the claimant made before the Justice S.B. Sinha (Retd.) Committee was that the recommendation for application of the subject in question was sent to the State Government by the University prior to the cut-off date and, as such, in terms of the Justice S.C. Agrawal Commission and the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “ State of Bihar & Ors. V. Bihar Rajya MSESKK Maha sangh & Ors.” (supra) they are entitled to absorb in the service of the University. 23. The grievance of the writ petitioner was that the writ petitioner was absorbed w.e.f 01.06.2003 vide notification dated 05.08.2005 on retirement of Sri Ram Naresh Pathak ignoring the fact that the writ petitioner was eligible to hold the post since 05.12.1987. 24. The contention so raised on behalf of the writ petitioner has been rebutted by the University by taking the ground which was brought on record by an affidavit that the four number of sanctioned post was for Department of Hindi and the same had been taken into consideration in the report of Justice S.C. Agrawal Commission wherein the reference has been made of their recommendation made by the University on 13.11.1987, 28.11.1987 and 30.04.1988. The recommendation made by the University after cut-off date of the college, i.e. on 31.03.1987, having regard to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “ State of Bihar & Ors. V. Bihar Rajya MSESKK Mahasangh & Ors.” (supra), cannot be taken into consideration in view of the law laid down therein as is available at paragraph-28 thereof. For ready reference, paragraph-28 is being referred hereinbelow: “28. After hearing the counsel appearing for various parties and considering their objections, we find no difficulty in accepting the report of the commission so far as list no. (1) containing names of employees working on sanctioned posts and list no. (ii) containing names of employees working on posts for which recommendations were sent by the universities to the State upto the cut-off date. So far as list no. (1) containing names of employees working on sanctioned posts and list no. (ii) containing names of employees working on posts for which recommendations were sent by the universities to the State upto the cut-off date. So far as list no. (iii) is concerned, it has been seriously objected to the State Government and in our opinion, there is justification for it. The teachers, who were appointed against the posts for which recommendations were sent by the universities to the State after cut-off date or for which there were no recommendations sent by the universities, can claim no right of consideration for absorption, whatever may be the reasons for alleged delay in sending recommendations. It is likely that due to fortuitous circumstances some recommendations which could have been sent by the universities to the State were not submitted before the cut-off date, nonetheless, on the basis of clear terms of the government resolution, such appointees working on posts recommended after cut-off date can legitimately claim no right of being considered for absorption." 25. It is evident from the observation made in paragraph-28 that the Hon’ble Apex Court has been pleased to observe that no difficulty will be there in accepting the report of the Commission so far as List No.(i) containing names of the employee working on sanctioned post, and List No.(ii) containing names of the employee working on the post to which recommendations were sent by the University to the State Government upto the cut-off date. 26. So far as the List No.(iii) is concerned, it has seriously been objected to the State Government and in the opinion, there is justification for it. 27. The teachers who were appointed against the post for which recommendations were after cut-off date or which there were no recommendation sent by the University, can claim no right of consideration for absorption, whatever may be the reasons for alleged delay in sending recommendation. It has further been observed in the said paragraph that some recommendation which could have been sent by the University to the State Government were not submitted before the cut-off date, none the less, on the basis of clear terms of the Government Resolution, such appointees working on post recommended after cut-off date can legitimately claim no right of being considered for absorption. 28. 28. Justice S.B. Sinha (Retd.) Committee report while considering the case of the writ petitioner wherein the ground was taken that name of the writ petitioner appears at Sl. No.44 in Annexure-IIIA of the report and as such, the writ petitioner ought to have been absorbed w.e.f. his date of appointment i.e. 22.02.1986. But, after going through the affidavit of the University, it has been referred in the said report sofar as the case of the writ petitioner is concerned, that one post have fallen vacant due to retirement of Dr. Ram Naresh Pathak on 31.05.2003. 29. The further observation has been made in the said report by making reference of page no.1030 of the report of Justice S.C. Agrawal Commission wherein reference of several letters of recommendations dated 05.03.1980, 25.09.1981, 06.08.1985, 30.03.1987, 13.11.1987, 28.11.1987 and 30.04.1988 have been made. The cut-off date in respect of this college being 30.03.1987 while the letters of recommendation have been made on 13.11.1987, 28.11.1987 and 30.04.1987 said to be sent after cut-off date. Post of lecturer (Hindi) was recommended on13.11.1987. 30. The Committee on the aforesaid factual background, while considering the additional affidavit the five posts in Hindi being 5 th to 9 th, , had been said to be recommended. But the same has not been accepted by the Commission in view of the fact that the 5 th post has not been recommended by the State Government as has been taken note by the making reference of same as above. 31.Therefore, Justice S.B. Sinha (Retd.) Committee report has come to the finding that since the writ petitioner has been absorbed in the service of the University w.e.f. 01.06.2003, i.e., after the post having been fallen vacant due to retirement of Dr. Ram Naresh Pathak. 32. The learned Single Judge has accepted the plea of the writ petitioner and considering the fact that the writ petitioner was having the eligibility as on 05.12.1987 has passed the direction for absorption of the writ petitioner shifting it from 01.06.2003 to 05.12.1987. 33. The ground has been taken on behalf of the University that such direction cannot be passed since the same has also cannot be said to be in consonance with Justice S.C. Agrawal Commission report. 34. 33. The ground has been taken on behalf of the University that such direction cannot be passed since the same has also cannot be said to be in consonance with Justice S.C. Agrawal Commission report. 34. We have considered the aforesaid issue and again coming to the Justice Agrawal Commission Report wherefrom it is evident that four posts have been shown to be sanctioned in the Hindi subject as per the Annexure-I A. The posts have also been recommended for its sanction by the State Government, but the State Government has not accepted the recommendation and, as such, the 5 th post of Hindi subject has not been sanctioned as per the details furnished by making reference of the same hereinabove. 35. The question therefore arises as to whether service of the writ petitioner can be absorbed merely on the ground of having eligibility in absence of the sanctioned post. 36. The law is well settled in this regard that there cannot be any appointment contrary to the sanctioned post. The same is also the view taken by the Justice Agrawal Commission which has been accepted in its entirety by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “ State of Bihar & Ors. V. Bihar Rajya MSESKK Mahasangh & Ors.” (supra). 37. It is admitted fact as has been admitted by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner that in the Hindi subject only four posts were sanctioned as on 05.12.1987 and the writ petitioner was fifth one as per the tabular chart referred herein above. The fact about four posts having been sanctioned since is not in dispute and the writ petitioner is 5 th one in Hindi subject, as such, there cannot be any absorption merely on the ground of eligibility in absence of sanctioned post. However, on account of the retirement of Dr. Ram Naresh Pathak w.e.f. 31.05.2003, the decision has been taken by the competent authority for absorption of the writ petitioner w.e.f. 01.06.2003. 38. The aforesaid issue has been agitated by the writ petitioner before the Justice S.B. Sinha (Retd.) Committee that has been taken into consideration in its entirety and based upon the fact of availability of sanctioned post on 05.12.1987 and one post fallen vacant after superannuation of Dr. Ram Naresh Pathak on 31.05.2003 therefore the decision of absorption of the writ petitioner w.e.f. 01.06.2003 has been sustained. 39. Ram Naresh Pathak on 31.05.2003 therefore the decision of absorption of the writ petitioner w.e.f. 01.06.2003 has been sustained. 39. This Court after having discussed the issues as above and after adverting to the order passed by the learned Single Judge it has been found therefrom that the learned Single Judge has gone only with the issue of eligibility of the writ petitioner and considering the same to be available to the writ petitioner the direction has been passed for his absorption w.e.f. 05.12.1987. 40. The learned Single Judge has not taken into consideration the availability of post said to be sanctioned which was four in number and admittedly the writ petitioner was 5 th in Hindi subject. The learned Single Judge, therefore, has not considered the issue of non-availability of the sanctioned post as on 05.12.1987. 41. The learned Single Judge, therefore, according to our considered view has erred in passing such direction even in absence of availability of sanctioned post in Hindi subject. 42. The learned Single Judge ought to have taken into consideration the Justice S.C. Agrawal Commission report primarily the number of sanctioned post and the writ petitioner having been in the 5 th in number. 43. Further, the issue of writ petitioner has been taken into consideration by the fresh committee headed by Justice S.B. Sinha (Retd.) Committee. 44. The learned Single Judge has further erred in interfering with the impugned order without appreciating the findings so recorded by the Justice S.B. Sinha (Retd.) Committee, since, the recommendation made by the University upto the cut-off date has also been taken into consideration by Justice S.C. Agrawal Commission. 45. The learned Single Judge while showing interference with the order dated 05.08.2005 has not considered the report of the Justice S.B. Sinha (Retd.) Committee which has been decided by holding that the date of absorption of the writ petitioner w.e.f. 01.06.2003 is proper. 46. The learned Single Judge after considering the findings so recorded by the Justice S.C. Agrawal Commission without appreciating the fact that the report of Justice S.B. Sinha (Retd.) Committee has not been questioned by the writ petitioner since no specific prayers to that effect has been made in the writ petition. 46. The learned Single Judge after considering the findings so recorded by the Justice S.C. Agrawal Commission without appreciating the fact that the report of Justice S.B. Sinha (Retd.) Committee has not been questioned by the writ petitioner since no specific prayers to that effect has been made in the writ petition. 47.The writ petition being W.P(S) No.1850 of 2018 has been filed seeking therein the following prayer: “(a) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) to the respondents to allow the claim of the petitioners in accordance with the report submitted by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agarwal Commission and the verdict of Hon'ble Supreme Court in CA no. 6098/1997 (Annex-4). (b) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding upon the respondents to allow the claim of the petitioner in light of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in C.A No. 6098/2017, which they have not considered, by issuing notification vide memo no. RU/VC/R/317/05 dated 5.8.2005 of Provisional Absorption against recommended post based on Justice S.C Agarwal Commission Report. (Annexure-12). (c) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding upon the respondents to absorb petitioner from 5.12.1987 i.e., the date of eligibility as decided by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agarwal Commission and the verdict of Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.A No. 6098/1997. (d) Any other appropriate writ / writs be issued / order /orders be passed / direction / directions be made as to this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper for doing conscionable justice to the petitioners.” 48.The first prayer is that absorption may be given on the basis of the Justice S.C. Agrawal Commission report but as per the Justice Agrawal Commission report also the writ petitioner is not entitled to be absorbed w.e.f. 05.12.1987 in absence of the sanctioned post. Further, the said issue has subsequently been considered by the Justice S.B. Sinha (Retd.) Committee wherein the writ petitioner has agitated his claim however CA No.6098/2017 in which also the date of absorption has been found to be proper w.e.f. 01.06.2003. 49.The writ petitioner, therefore, cannot claim the absorption on the basis of the Justice Agrawal Commission report since the claim of the writ petitioner has fully been considered by the subsequent Committee, i.e, Justice S.B.Sinha (Retd.) Committee. 50. 49.The writ petitioner, therefore, cannot claim the absorption on the basis of the Justice Agrawal Commission report since the claim of the writ petitioner has fully been considered by the subsequent Committee, i.e, Justice S.B.Sinha (Retd.) Committee. 50. The writ petitioner was aggrieved with the decision so taken of absorption w.e.f. 01.06.2003 then the findings so recorded along with the conclusion by the Justice S.B. Sinha (Retd.) Committee report ought to have been questioned by the writ petitioner. 51. The learned Single Judge has not appreciated the aforesaid aspect of the matter and even case of the writ petitioner has been adjudicated by Justice S.B. Sinha (Retd.) Committee, but even then the impugned decision vide Memo No. 317/05 dated 05.08.2005 has been quashed and set aside with a direction to absorb the writ petitioner w.e.f. 05.12.1987 which is contrary to the adjudication made by the Justice S.B. Sinha (Retd.) Committee. 52. This Court, therefore, based upon the aforesaid reasons, that the order passed by the learned Single Judge suffers from an error, hence, the instant appeal is fit to be allowed, accordingly, allowed. 53. In consequence thereof, the order dated 21.12.2021 passed in W.P(S) No.1850 of 2018 by the learned Single Judge is hereby quashed and set aside. 54. In the result, the writ petition being W.P(S) No.1850 of 2018 stands dismissed. 55. Pending I.As, if any, stands disposed of.