The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appointments of respondent Nos. 7 to 18 were upheld as the constitution of the Selection Committee was found to be in compliance with the statutory provisions. The allegation of antedating the notification of appointment was not accepted, and the appointments were upheld. The Chancellor's order recalling the enquiry was found to be in line with the statutory provisions.

Jyoti Saran, J.

These batch of appeals, preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna, arise from a judgment and order, dated 10.12.2015, passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in CWJC No.19620 of 2014, whereby the learned single Judge, while allowing the writ petition, has quashed the notification bearing Memo No.15/GIA/13, dated 16.1.2013, where under appointment orders were issued in respect of respondent Nos.7 to 18 to the writ petition against the posts of Principal of constituent colleges falling under Magadh University along with the notification, dated 6.3.2013, impugned at Annexure-10 to the writ petition, appointing respondent Nos.19 to 21 against future vacancies. The learned single Judge has also quashed the order, dated 21.10.2014, issued by the Governor’s Secretariat under the orders of the Chancellor, recalling his directions as contained in the letter, dated 18.3.2014, whereby an enquiry committee had been constituted to enquire into the alleged irregularities in the appointment of the Principals, in different constituent colleges of the Magadh University, impugned at Annexure-21 to the writ petition.

2. The private respondent Nos. 7 to 18, whose appointments were put to question along with the appointments of respondent Nos.19 to 21 before the writ Court and came to be set aside by the judgment impugned, have come before the Division Bench through the present set of appeals.

3. Interestingly, respondents Nos. 19 to 21 to the writ petition have not joined the challenge.

4. Before proceeding to consider the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants, I deem it necessary to briefly discuss the matter in contest as it fell for consideration before the learned writ Court.

5. The respondent-Magadh University advertised 22 posts of Principal on 25.10.2008. However, since five additional vacancies had occurred in the meanwhile, the respondent University went on to appoint 27 Principals, i.e., 22+5. The appointments of these 27 Principals were challenged by the writ petitioner No.1 and some others in CWJC No.17804 of 2009 and analogous cases and was set aside vide judgment and order passed on 28.01.2011, since reported in 2011(1) PLJR 1134 (Dr. Bimal Prasad Singh v. The State of Bihar and others). Directions were issued by the writ Court to hold fresh selection after advertising the same, which order of the writ Court was questioned by the appointees by filing LPA No. 358 of 2011 and was dismissed by judgment and order passed on 5.4.2011.

6. In the meantime, the respondent University, in obedience to the order of the writ Court, advertised 34 posts of Principal on 12.2.2011, which were inclusive of the vacancies that had occurred in the meantime and till the date of advertisement.

7. On the other hand, the appointees, being aggrieved by the judgment and order of the Division Bench, affirming the order of the writ Court, preferred Special Leave Petitions bearing SLP Nos. 11529-11531 of 2011, which, again, were dismissed, but with the following riders:

(a) The University shall make fresh selection from amongst those, who had applied pursuant to the advertisement issued on 25.10.2008;

(b) Appointment would be strictly in accordance with the relevant Statutes/Rules and Regulations; and

(c) The selection process would not to be influenced by the direction of the writ Court appearing in the operative portion of the judgment.

8. As a consequence of the order of the Supreme Court in the Special Leave Petitions, the subsequent advertisement published by the University, on 12.2.2011, lost its force.

9. A selection process was carried out in the light of the directions issued by the Supreme Court and 22 of the applicants against the advertisement, dated 25.10.2008, were appointed as Principals. The appointments of these 22 Principals were challenged in a batch of writ petitions