JUDGMENT :

ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J.

1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. An application has been filed on behalf of an intervenor, namely, Mahant Ramesh Giri @ Ramesh Giri, who professes to be the present Mahant of Bodh-Gaya Math, Bodh-Gaya, which is the parent body and under whose aegis, the college in question was established.

3. Mr. Ambarish Kumar, the learned Advocate moving the intervention application has simply submitted that he is required to be heard as he supports the case of the respondent/college.

4. For the reason that the prayer made in the intervention application is not in contrast with the case of the respondent/college, we do not consider it necessary to get the response of the parties with respect to the averments made in the intervention application.

5. The intervenor/petitioner is permitted to participate in the proceedings, which he has.

6. The State has preferred this appeal against the order dated 23.08.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 17283 of 2019, directing the State to grant temporary affiliation to the respondent/college so that in the meantime, the vacant position with respect to the sanctioned strength of teachers would be filled up and the Institution/College in question, which is about ninety years old, is not prevented from being run properly.

7. From the perusal of the order impugned, it appears that notwithstanding the fact that the college in question was listed in the Bihar Gazette on 09.10.1963, the affiliation to the college was refused. The respondent/college could get temporary affiliation only with the intervention of this Court in the past.

8. The Deputy Director, Department of Education vide his communication dated 11.07.2019, rejected the claim of the respondent/college for its entitlement for affiliation on the ground that the land on which the college is situated is not registered in the name of the college but is registered in the name of Harihar Sanskrit Pathsala, Bodh-Gaya and that out of the sanctioned strength of ten teachers, only six had been working.

9. The aforesaid decision of the Government was put to challenge in the aforesaid writ petition (C.W.J.C. No. 17283 of 2019), wherein it was urged that the name of the Institution had been changed in recent past which was known to the University and the State and that could not had been the reason for withholding grant of affiliation when the Institution had been running for the last nine decades.

10. It was also urged before the learned Single Judge that because of the Institution not being affiliated, no selection committee was constituted by the University for recommending the appointment of teachers on the vacant posts.

11. The learned Single Judge acceded to the aforesaid reasoning and rightly so by holding that it is a conundrum and because of the inaction of the State in granting affiliation, necessary number of teachers against the sanctioned strength were not being appointed.

12. The learned Single Judge also took note of the fact that no Educational Institution in the present days are running with full strength and the aforesaid ground which is not solely attributable to the respondent/college, could not be used against the Institution for denying affiliation.

13. It appears that the learned Single Judge was conscious of the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Braj Kishore and the provisions contained in Sections 35 and 21(2)(d) of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976, but the case of the respondent/college was absolutely different.

14. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that without necessary infrastructure and the Institution having conformed to other requirements, the learned Single Judge was not correct in directing for granting temporary affiliation for which there is no provision under the Bihar Universities Act, 1976.

15. It has also been submitted that the State Government had re-visited the parameters of Resolution No. 2291 of 18.10.1976 meant for Sanskrit Colleges,