1. Private respondent No.4 was appointed as a Principal of what is known as Bihar National College (B.N. College), Patna, which is stated to be a constituent college of Patna University. The notification by virtue of which the private respondent came to be appointed is dated 3.6.2009 and is Annexure-3 to the writ application. This notification has been issued under the so-called orders of the Vice-Chancellor of Patna University under the signature of the Registrar of Patna University. His appointment is under challenge in the present writ application on many a grounds but primarily that respondents appointment is not in accordance with the Patna University Act, 1976 and the related statutes notified from time to time as also that respondent No.4 lacks basic eligibility in terms of the advertisement.

2. Petitioner No.1 is stated to be a Professor of Economics working under Patna University and petitioner No.2 is a Professor and Head of Department of Geology in B.N. College and both of them were applicants to the post and have vital interest in the matter as to who and how he is occupying the post of a Principal of the College in question. Whether he has the requisite qualification coupled with the fact whether such selection or appointment is in conformity with law or not as according to them the selection has been carried out in an illegal and capricious manner.

3. B.N. College is a premier institution imparting teaching in a number of disciplines under the Science and Arts stream for over 121 years. It became a constituent college under Patna University after the enactment of Patna University Act, 1951. According to the pleadings, the teaching imparted in the College is of under graduate and post graduate level, basically relating to the general stream with no specialized courses as such being offered. One of the first and foremost contention against the appointment of respondent No.4 is that he does not come within the definition of a teacher as defined under Section 2(r) of the Patna University Act, 1976. Section 2(r) of the Act reads as follows: "Teacher" includes Principal, University Professor, College Professor, Reader, Lecturer, Demonstrator and other persons imparting instruction in any department, or in any College or institute maintained by the University."

4. The word "Principal" has been defined in Section 2(k) of the Patna University Act, 1976, which reads "Principal" means the head of a college". The private respondent is supposed to be holder of degrees in Electronics and Electronics is not one of the subjects which is taught in B.N. College. Since Electronics is not a part of curriculum of the University much less the College, then a person alien to the courses which are taught, cannot be picked up for shouldering the responsibility of the Principal of the College in question. The basis for making such a submission is a judicial pronouncement which came to be made in the case of Dr. (Mrs.) Annapurna Devi and Others V/s. State of Bihar and Others, reported in 1997(1) PUR 965. In a similar circumstances after taking note of the various provisions under the Patna University Act; 1976 including the definition clauses, the Court crystallizes its opinion in para-8, 10 and 12. These paragraphs are reproduced below as they are of vital significance to the issue raised in the present writ application:

"8. It is no doubt that a Principal has been defined to mean the Head of a College. But, it is equally true that the Act envisages a teacher to include the Principal of a College. Sections 2(k) and (r) must be read with Section 7 which provides that teaching in connection with the University courses shall be conducted through the Colleges and through Departments maintained by University by the University Professors, Professors, Readers, Lecturers and Teachers in accordance with any syllabus prescribed by the regulations. (Emphasis supplied).

Reading the provisions together I have no doubt that though the Principa