The interpretation and applicability of relevant statutes and sections, including Statute No.5, Section 35, and Section 4(1)(14) of the Bihar Universities Act, as well as the Supreme Court's interpretation of these provisions, influenced the court's decision.

Both the writ applications have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common ORDER :for the reason that the question of law coupled with the fact emerging from the pleadings are not at variance.

2. Both the petitioners were initially appointed on 4.7.1978 under what is known as Nalanda Mahila College, Biharsharif. At the relevant time it was under a Governing Body but subsequently the College in question was taken over by Magadh University. Petitioners thereafter have been transferred to other institutions depending upon their utility and the post being available in the Colleges concerned. Long time has gone past but their final status with regard to permanency, absorption and the benefits arising therefrom has not accrued to them because the University did not or could not take a decision under their understanding of law that the matter requires the approval of the Hon`ble Chancellor in this regard. Petitioners were supposed to have been appointed against the so-called 3rd and 4th sanctioned post for which recommendations are there but in absence of a final decision being taken at the level of the Hon'ble Chancellor, their status remains in a limbo. Procrastination on the part of the respondents has compelled them to approach the Court for suitable directions.

3. Learned senior counsel representing the two petitioners submits that the stand taken by the respondent Chancellor in the counter affidavit that no decision can be taken on the status of the two petitioners in view of the fact that a decision rendered by a Division Bench in the case of Devanand Sharma and others Vs. Chancellor and others (CWJC No. 7550 of 2002) has doubted the correctness of the decision rendered in the case of Dr. Shiv Narain Yadav and others Vs. The State of Bihar and others, 2001 (2) PLJR 817 and the matter is pending before a larger Bench of the High Court. Till the Full Bench renders its decision there cannot be clarity as to what is to be done, which rule will apply or statute will govern the cases of regularization or absorption of lecturers including the two petitioners.

4. The stand of the learned senior counsel representing the petitioners is that Chancellor’s stand does not seem to be correct in light of two facts – (i) that the relevant statute which will cover the cases of the two petitioners would be Statute No.5, which had been notified on 18.11.1980 and is effective from 14.11.1980. Since the petitioners had already completed 24 months of service in July 1980 and 24 months of service was a pre-condition for consideration, with cut off date being prior to 31.12.1980. Their case is squarely covered by Statute No.5 and no other subsequent Statute has any role to play; and (ii) mere pendency of the matter or the issue dragging from one year to other or from one decade to next will not change the basic facts behind which the petitioners are claiming their right of regularization and other benefits.

5. It is also contended that in view of the decision which has already been rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar and others v. Bihar Rajya M.S.E.S.K.K. Mahasangh and others, (2005) 9 Supreme Court Cases 129, there ought not to be any confusion on the issue as to which rules or statute will govern their cases. Attention of the Court has been drawn to para 54, 55 and 56 of the said decision wherein the Hon`ble Supreme Court has given its interpretation to section 35 as well as section 4(1)(14) of the Bihar Universities Act as well as the subsequent amendment brought about under section 57-A.

6. Paragraphs 54, 55 and 56 of the aforesaid decision are reproduced hereinbelow, which according to the counsel settles the law or removes the ambiguity if at all on such issue:-

“54. The two non obstante clauses with slightly different wordings have thus to be harmoniously construed so as to fulfil the object of each one of them. On examination of the scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions, we find that S