The posts of Principal in different faculties of Patna University were dissimilar and separate, and if any of those posts were reserved for any reserved category, the result would be that the general category candidates for that faculty would be completely ousted, and there would be hundred per cent reservation in favor of that reserved category and against the general category, which is not permissible in view of the law clearly laid down by the Supreme Court.

B. P. Singh, J.

1. - These two writ petitions were heard by a Division Bench of this Court. The petitioners in both the writ petitions had challenged the Corrigenda issued by the Bihar State university (Constituent Colleges) Service Commission dated 5th May, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the first Corrigendum), and 23rd May, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the second corrigendum ). These corrigenda related to the advertisement issued by the respondent Commission on 16-12-1989 inviting applications for appointment to eight posts of Principal in the different faculties under the Patna University. The petitioners challenged these two corrigenda on several grounds. The learned Judges, who heard the writ petitions, were agreed that the second corrigendum deserved to be struck down as illegal and invalid, though for different reasons. They, however, differed on the question of validity of the first corrigendum, while Aftab Alam, J. held the same to be invalid and illegal and quashed the same, Astha. na, J. held that the same was in accordance with law and warranted to interference by this Court. On a difference of opinion between two Learned judges of this court, for whom I have great respect the writ petitions have been placed before me for disposal.

2. As noticed earlier, the Learnec judges have differed only on the question as to whether the first corrigendum was valid and in accordance with law and, therefore, it is not necessary for me to consider other questions urged before the Division Bench, on which there is no difference of opinion. I may only notice that the other submission urged in both the writ petitions, that If view of issuance of the advertisement of 16-12-1989 inviting applications for appointment to the eight posts of Prin cipal, the corrigendum could not be issued so as to bring about any change in the process of Section already initiated, has been rejected by both the learned Judges.

3. The relevant provisions of the law as also the relevant facts have been set out in detail in the judgment of Asthana, J. Aftab Alam, J. has also noticed the relevant facts in his judgment and, therefore, it is not necessary for me to refer to all the facts and provisions of law which have been noticed by them with a view to avoid prolixity. The respondent-commission had issued an advertisement on 16-12-1989 inviting applications for appointment to eight posts of Principal in the different faculties of the Patna University which were sanctioned in the scales of University professor/reader. The posts were advertised faculty-wise, and not College-wise. One post each in the Science Faculty. Humanities and Social Sciences Faculty, law Faculty and Engineering Faculty were advertised. Two posts each in the science or Social Sciences or humanities Faculties, and Education faculty were advertised. The candidates (with the exception of category relating to Engineering Faculty) were required to possess a first or high second class masters degree or equivalent degree of a foreign University with consistently good academic record, and not less than 12 years teaching experience at least as a lecturer in a Degree College/university department. The eligibility conditions for the post of Principal in the Engineering faculty were separately prescribed in the advertisement. Pursuant to the advertisement, the petitioners as also others had applied, but even after passage of about four and half years selection of candidates had not been made by the Commission and the matter remained pending. On 5-5-1994 the first corrigendum was issued purportedly in the light of the new reservation policy. Apart from increasing the number of vacancies from eight to nine, it fixed quota for different reserved categories. Four of the posts were to be filled up by candidates belonging to general category, while one each were to be filled up by candidates belonging to Scheduled Tribe, scheduled Caste and Backward-class category, while two posts were reserve