P.S. SAHAY, J.

This application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is for quashing Annexure 5, the notification issued by the Vice-Chancellor appointing respondent no. 8 as temporary lecturer in Education with specialisation in History and also Annexure 8, the order of the Chancellor rejecting the representation filed by the petitioners.

2. In order to appreciate the points which have been raised in this application, it will be necessary to state some facts. The senate and the Syndicate of the Patna University (hereinafter referred to as the University) were superseded in 1971, and respondent 8, the Vice Chancellor assumed power, and he had to act with the approval of the Chancellor. During the year 1974-75 six new posts of lecturers were created by the University which were sanctioned by the State Government in the faculty of Education in six subjects, Viz., Science Methodology, Home Science Methodology, History Methodology, Sanskrit Methodology, Geography Methodology and Hindi Methodology. It has been stated in the petition that respondent 3 (Vice-Chancellor) and respondent 7, Dr. Raja Ram Singh, acting principal of the Training College, were close friends of Sri K.K, Poddar, principal, Ram Mohan Roy Seminary School-husband of respondent 2. On 22.11.74 respondent 3 illegally appointed respondent 3 as lecturer in Education in History Methodology in the post-graduate department without any advertisement and without the concurrance of the Bihar Public Service Commission (hereinafter called the Commission), and the petitioners, though qualified, were not appointed. Similar favours were also shown to respondent 9, 10, 11 and 15. That temporary appointment was valid for a period of six months and had expired on 21.1.75. But respondent 8 still continued to hold that post. On 1. 1. 75 the post of Geography Methodology was advertised in the Indian Nation (vide Annexure 2) and the appointment was made on 26.4.75. On 5.4.75 the Commission (respondent 4), at the request of the University (respondent 1) issued six advertisements bearing nos. 14/75 to 19/75, giving therein essential qualifications, including the post of History Methodology (vide advertisement no. 16/75), with which we are concerned in this case in the scale of pay 400-40-800-50-950. A copy of that advertisement has been filed, marked Annexure 3.

3. According to advertisement no. 16/75, at least second class Master's degree in Education with specialisation in History Methodology was required, with preference to those who had experience in teaching. A number of persons, including the petitioners and respondent 6, applied for the afore said post in History Methodology. Two experts were necessary for interview by the Commission-one internal and one external. Respondent 7 was appointed as internal expert and respondent 16 was appointed as external expert, though, according to the petitioners, they were not experts in History Methodology. On 26.6.75 respondent 16 (external expert) sent a telegram from Luck-now to the Commission that he was not competent to act as an expert in (he subjects of Science Methodology and History Methodology and, therefore, it would not be proper for him to assist the Commission for the interview in those subjects, and even then if the Commission wanted his assistance, he was ready to come to Patna for the aforesaid interviews. A copy of the letter sent by respondent 16 to respondent 4 has been filed along with the application, marked as Annexure 9. The Commission by its letter dated 5.7.75 wrote back to respondent 16 to come and assist the commission for the interview in those subjects for which advertisement had already been made. Interviews of the candidates for all the six different subjects were held by the Commission between 14.7.75 and 17.7.75, and the interview of those petitioners in History Methodology was actually held on 15.7.75. One day prior to that, i.e. on 14.7.75 respondent 14 filed Title Suit 159 of 1975 be