S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.

1. The writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner against decision dated 6th November, 2000 taken by the Governing Body of A.S.G.M. College, Nirsa, whereby and whereunder, the respondent No. 7 has been appointed to the post of Principal of the College.

2. The main plea taken to assail the decision is that : (a) the respondent No. 7 has no requisite 12 years of teaching experience, as per the advertisement and the guidelines of All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE, for short); and (b) the said respondent No. 7 does not have the requisite qualification of Post Graduate with first Class, as required, as per the guidelines of AICTE.

3. It appears that in pursuance of advertisement No. 74 of 1999 (Annexure 1), the petitioner as well as 7th respondent applied for appointment to the post of Principal. The interview for which was held on 8th September, 1999, wherein after the Bihar College Service Commission, vide letter No. 1087, dated 8th October, 1999. recommended the names of two persons. The respondent No. 7 was recommended as the first nominee and the petitioner as the second.

4. For the reasons best known to the Managing Committee of the College, no order of appointment having issued, the petitioner moved before this Court in CWJC No. 3199 of 1999. A Bench of this Court, vide order dated 16th December, 1999 disposed of the writ petition with directions to the Governing Body of the College to proceed with the process of appointment of the Principal, strictly in accordance with law. Both the parties were given liberty to challenge the decision of the Governing Body, if so required.

5. The case of the respondent No. 7 is that he has the requisite qualification and eligibility of more than 12 years of teaching experience as a Lecturer in an Affiliated College of Ranchi University, now Vinoba Bhave University. As per him, the College, in question, was established on 21st of June, 1980 and the petitioner was appointed after interview held on 25th of June, 1980 to the post of Lecturer on 28th of June, 1980. He joined the College as a Lecturer on 1st July and his appointment was confirmed by the Governing Body. In pursuance of advertisement dated 15th September, 1982, he applied and on the recommendation of the Selection Board of the College, was given appointment on 3rd October, 1982 to the first post of Lecturer (History).

6. Further case of respondent No. 7 is that the College was affiliated for Arts and Commerce faculties for the Session 1983-84 onwards by the letter No. 15/A1-023/85 edu-724, dated 26th May, 1986. The posts were formally created and sanctioned, vide letter No. P/1741-42, dated 3rd April, 1987 issued by the Ranchi University.

7. It is stated that the respondent No. 7 has already taken charge as Principal of the College which has been approved by the University on 31st March, 2002.

8. The Governing Body of the College-respondent No. 6 has taken similar plea in support of respondent No. 7. It is stated that in pursuance of direction of this Court in CWJC No. 3199 of 1999 (R), the Governing Body considered the educational qualifications and academic careers of both petitioner and respondent No. 7 wherein-after the respondent No. 7 has been appointed as Principal strictly in terms of statute, in accordance with law.

9. The petitioner has made specific averment that only two posts of lecturer in the department of History were sanctioned in the College, vide letters dated 25th May. 1988 and 31st August, 1988. There was no third sanctioned post of Lecturer (History) in the College. In pursuance of advertisement No. 821/89, the petitioner and respondent No. 7 applied along with others. However, one Sri Madan Mohan Tiwary and another Smt. Kamini Kumari having recommended by the College Service Commission, they were appointed to the post. In this background, the petitioner has raised question relating to continuity of respondent No. 7 as a lecturer (History in the College without any r