JUDGMENT : DEEPAK ROSHAN, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner primarily challenging the order dated 18.03.2015 passed by the Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha (Retd.) Commission by reason of which the claim of the petitioner for correction of date of his absorption on the post of ‘Lecturer’ in the University has been rejected and further for grant of 5th and 6th pay revision which the petitioner claims to be entitled. The petitioner further has prayed for quashing of the order dated 09.05.2015, whereby the petition preferred by the petitioner for recalling the order dated 18.03.2015 was rejected. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the other consecutive order dated 18.12.2015, passed by the Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha (Retd.) Commission arising out of other petition for recalling the aforesaid order dated 18.03.2015 on the ground of retirement of one ‘Shambhu Nath Mishra’ which was also rejected. Lastly, the petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the respondents to correct the date of absorption as well as grant benefits of 5th and 6th pay revision. 3. Earlier also, one writ petition being W.P.(S) no. 4197/2009 was filed by the petitioner, which stand dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 03.01.2018. Issues as were raised in the earlier writ petition i.e. W.P.(S) no. 4197/2009 was for correction of petitioner’s date of absorption as well as to grant the benefits of 5th and 6th pay revision. However, after knowing about ongoing Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha (Retd.) Commission considering the cases of University Teachers, which was earlier subject to verification by the Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.C. Agrawal (Retd.) Commission, the petitioner withdraws his writ to approach the Commission for redressal of his grievance. 4. Necessary facts related to the petitioner as per the pleadings is that he was appointed by the Governing Body in its meeting dated 07.10.1985 on the post of Lecturer in the Department of Sanskrit in Markham College of Commerce, Hazaribagh. Appointment letter was issued on 07.10.1985 and accordingly the petitioner joined on 07.10.1985 (Annexure-1 series of the writ petition). The siad College was one of the colleges, which by the decision of the then State of Bihar of 1986 was taken over as constituent unit of the University. Appointment letter was issued on 07.10.1985 and accordingly the petitioner joined on 07.10.1985 (Annexure-1 series of the writ petition). The siad College was one of the colleges, which by the decision of the then State of Bihar of 1986 was taken over as constituent unit of the University. The College was taken over by the Government vide its decision dated 19.08.1986 and thereafter, agreement was entered into between the College, Management & employee Associations of the University under section 4(1)(14) of the Bihar Universities Act, 1976. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner made following submissions: a) Disputes regarding sanctioned posts and validity of staff appointments in certain colleges led to vigilance inquiries, prompting employees to form the Bihar Rajya Mahavidyalaya Shikshak and Shikshakettar Karmchari Kalyan Mahasangh, which filed C.W.J.C. No. 4021/1995 before the Patna High Court seeking regularisation of services of teachers of 4th phase colleges. b) The Patna High Court directed Universities to consider regularisation under Section 4(14) of the Bihar Universities Act, 1976, which was challenged by the State before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, leading to the constitution of the Justice S.C. Agrawal Commission to examine disputes relating to absorption of employees. c) The Agrawal Commission report included the petitioner’s name in Annexure III-A and Annexure IV-A, showing that he was working prior to the cut-off date against a recommended post, following which the Supreme Court accepted the report and directed Universities to pass absorption orders. d) Pursuant to the report and Government letters, the petitioner’s services were absorbed as Lecturer in Sanskrit at Markham College of Commerce, Hazaribagh under Vinoba Bhave University vide memo dated 16.09.2005, with effect from 01.02.1988. e) The petitioner filed W.P.(S) No. 4197/2009 seeking shifting of the absorption date to 05.10.1985 and grant of 5th and 6th Pay Revision benefits, and also approached the Justice S.B. Sinha Commission, which rejected his claim by order dated 18.03.2015 and dismissed subsequent recall applications. f) The petitioner thereafter approached the Supreme Court, which permitted aggrieved persons to approach the High Court, leading to the present writ petition challenging the Commission’s order on the ground that the petitioner’s absorption had already been recognised and the only issue was correction of the date of absorption and consequential financial benefits. 6. f) The petitioner thereafter approached the Supreme Court, which permitted aggrieved persons to approach the High Court, leading to the present writ petition challenging the Commission’s order on the ground that the petitioner’s absorption had already been recognised and the only issue was correction of the date of absorption and consequential financial benefits. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents made following submissions: a) The petitioner did not possess the requisite qualification on the date of conversion of the college and acquired it only on 05.10.1985, hence could not claim earlier absorption. b) The petitioner was absorbed pursuant to Government Letter No. 38/C dated 01.02.1988, and therefore any claim for absorption from 05.10.1985 is legally untenable. c) Only one sanctioned post in Sanskrit existed at the relevant time, and no recommendation for creation of a third post was ever made, making petitioner’s claim unsustainable. d) As per the Justice S.C. Agrawal Commission Report, the petitioner’s case falls under List (III), i.e., appointees against posts without valid recommendation or beyond cut-off date, who have no right to absorption. e) The order dated 18.03.2015 correctly held that there was no material showing recommendation for creation of a third post, and therefore the petitioner’s absorption was not legally justified. f) Letter No. 38/C dated 01.02.1988 merely provided for provisional absorption subject to scrutiny, and did not confer any enforceable right; hence University could not have granted final absorption under Section 4(1)(14) of the Bihar Universities Act, 1976. 7. In order to point out the issue involved in the present case, he referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar vs. Bihar Rajya M.S.E.S.K.K. Maha Sangha , 2005 (9) SCC 129 particularly Para 73 (5); wherein it has been held that for those posts for which recommendation were sent after the cut-off date related to list (iii) does not deserve any consideration as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Further, even those employees who were working against the posts for which no recommendations were sent for approval to the State Government, have no right of being considered for absorption. For ready reference the relevant para is quoted herein below: “73. Further, even those employees who were working against the posts for which no recommendations were sent for approval to the State Government, have no right of being considered for absorption. For ready reference the relevant para is quoted herein below: “73. In view of this judgment and the directions made herein to the university to take a final decision based on the report of the Enquiry Commission, all the applications for impleadment as parties and objections filed to the enquiry report are rejected. It is for the university to take a final decision concerning the individual employees. For the same, no further orders are required on the interlocutory applications seeking certain directions pending the appeal and for the modification of earlier orders made. Other interlocutory applications need no further directions or orders. They all stand disposed of.” Conclusions 5. The appointees mentioned in List (iii), being the appointees against the posts for which recommendations were sent by the universities to the State Government after the cut-off date or those working against the posts which no recommendations were sent for approval of the State Government, have no right of being considered for absorption-whatever may be the fortuitous circumstances or otherwise in the matter of not sending recommendations for sanction in their cases. The negative report of the Enquiry Commission with regard to List (iii) is accepted and the universities are directed to exclude all such appointees named in List (iii) from consideration for absorption. [Emphasis Supplied] 8. Having heard Ld. Counsel for the rival parties and considering the prayers of the petitioner and also after perusing the documents annexed with the respective affidavits and the averments made therein, this Court finds that the petitioner is mainly assailing the order dated 18.03.2015 passed by the Hon’ble Justice S.B. Sinha (Retd.) Commission by reason of which the claim of the petitioner for correction of date of absorption as well as grant of 5th and 6th pay revision was rejected. The Petitioner has further prayed for quashing consequential order dated 09.05.2015 passed by the Hon’ble Sinha Commission, which was passed pursuant to the petition for recall of the order dated 18.03.2015 filed by the petitioner which was rejected and also the order dated 18.12.2015 passed by the Commission on application of the petitioner to reconsider his claim based on retirement of one ‘Shambhu Nath Mishra’ on 31.01.2010. 9. Ld. 9. Ld. Counsel of the petitioner mainly harped on the observation made by the Hon’ble Justice S.B. Sinha (Retd.) Commission stating that ‘the services of the claimant, therefore could not have been absorbed by the University’. 10. From records it appears that the decision taken by the University at the time of taking over of the 4th phase constituent colleges under section 4(1)(14) of the University Act caused controversy/dispute, and further the University implementation, in terms of direction given in the ‘Mahasangh case’ (supra) has also caused similar controversy/dispute, which necessitated the constitution of Hon’ble Justice S.B. Sinha (retd.) Commission. Though, to resolve such disputes, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Krishna Nand Yadav & Ors. vs. Magadh University & Ors. [Civil Appeal No. 2703 of 2017] again on 22.01.2013 appointed Mr. Justice S.C. Agrawal to enquire the issue framed therein. However, Justice S.C. Agrawal decline to enquire; thereafter, Hon’ble Justice S.B. Sinha (retd.) was appointed on 19.08.2013 as One-Man Commission to enquire and submit a report. The Hon’ble Apex Court in ‘Krishna Nand Yadav’ case observed as under (Relevant paragraph which is necessary for the present case):- 14. In view of the factual matrix, the orders of accepting cases passed by Justice Sinha Commission are fully in accordance with law and the exercise undertaken by Justice Sinha cannot be said to be in violation of either the Reports of Justice Agrawal or the decisions of this Court in Mahasangha case (supra). It was the decision in the case of Mahsangha that cases of individuals were required to be examined and thereafter, under the aforesaid terms of reference, Commission was required to decide individual cases. Thus we find that the objections raised by the State of Bihar and the State of Jharkhand, refusing to accept the orders, cannot be accepted. 15. Apart from that, in one such case, vide order dated 04.01.2015, Justice Sinha in the matter of ASJSN College, with respect to non-teaching staff, has made an elaborate consideration into this aspects, and the similar view has been taken by Justice Sinha in other cases. The objection raised with respect to other cases also does not survive. Thus, the first submission does not survive and is hereby rejected. Even in grey areas which were left for consideration by the Commission, the view adopted is wholly justified and is in accordance with the law, we are in agreement with the same. The objection raised with respect to other cases also does not survive. Thus, the first submission does not survive and is hereby rejected. Even in grey areas which were left for consideration by the Commission, the view adopted is wholly justified and is in accordance with the law, we are in agreement with the same. 16. Coming to second objection. It is submitted that in the Agreement of taking over of the colleges, certain manipulations were done so as to benefit incumbents in the list. We find that Justice Sinha Commission has taken into consideration all these aspects in individual cases as apparent from its various orders and, therefore, only those cases have been recommended in which it was found, on due considerations of the matter, that the appointments were not made on the basis of any manipulation or procured on the basis of illegal documents. The view taken by the Commission is based on meticulous consideration of cases cannot be said to be vitiated or illegal in any manner whatsoever. to be vitiated or illegal in any manner whatsoever. …………………………………………………………….. 11. Thus, this Court finds that objections as were raised against the observations of the Hon’ble Justice S.B. Sinha (retd.) Commission in its report was declined by the Hon’ble Supreme Court; except the fact that in cases of incumbents not found fit for acceptance by the Commission, were given liberty to approach the concerned High Court. 12. The petitioner in terms of the above liberty granted and after approaching the Hon’ble Justice S.B. Sinha (retd.) Commission and after being aggrieved by its order(s) dated 18.03.215, 09.05.2015 and 18.12.2015 has filed the present writ petition. 13. From record, it further appears that the Hon’ble S. B. Sinha Commission after delineating on the facts came to the specific conclusion (Relevant portion of the Report is extracted herein below):- This Commission in the order dated 11.09.2014 furthermore noticed as under:- “56. In view of the aforementioned clear direction issued by the Supreme Court of India, it is not possible to hold that apart from those whose names were recommended prior to the cut-off date, their cases can be considered by this Commission” The services of the claimant, therefore, could not have been absorbed by the University. 14. In view of the aforementioned clear direction issued by the Supreme Court of India, it is not possible to hold that apart from those whose names were recommended prior to the cut-off date, their cases can be considered by this Commission” The services of the claimant, therefore, could not have been absorbed by the University. 14. The above observation was based on the fact that no record was produced before the Hon’ble Justice S.B. Sinha (retd.) Commission that any recommendation had been made by the University for creation of a third post. 15. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the Respondents, the petitioner is justifying its absorption based on its name in the list (iii) and list (IV-A) of Justice S.C. Agrawal report and Government letter no. “38C” based on which the University absorbed the petitioner w.e.f. 01.02.1988. 16. It is pertinent to mention here that the Government letter no. ‘38C’ only suggest that government took a decision to absorb the employees provisionally on the posts in the taken over constituent college in 4th phase. Further, the list for employees to be absorbed was subject to be enquired by a university level committee and after recommendation of the Vice-chancellor of University, the same was required to be sent to the Government for its consideration. 17. In the instant case, neither the list of employees as were annexed in Government letter no. ‘38C’ was produced during the course of hearing; nor annexed with the writ petition. Moreover, the Hon’ble Justice S.B. Sinha (retd.) Commission in its order dated 18.03.2015 had categorically observed that “In view of the matter, having regard to the limited jurisdiction of this Commission, and furthermore in view of the Judgment and Order passed by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Mahasangh, it is difficult to uphold the absorption of the claimant on the basis of the Government letter no. ‘38C’ dated 01.02.1988, as such a direction would render absorption by the University in its service more persons than the number of posts sanctioned/recommended therefore.” 18. ‘38C’ dated 01.02.1988, as such a direction would render absorption by the University in its service more persons than the number of posts sanctioned/recommended therefore.” 18. It is not in dispute that the petitioner even approached the Hon’ble Justice S.B. Sinha (retd.) Commission for recall of the order dated 18.03.2015, on the pretext of not bringing into the knowledge of the Commission regarding the retirement of one ‘Shambhunath Mishra’, who retired on 31.01.2010 and thus petitioner could have been adjusted in the death cum retirement category. Meaning thereby; the petitioner had knowledge that he has been wrongly absorbed. 19. Moreover, as was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment rendered in Mahasangh (supra) in Para 73(5) ….… ‘The appointees mentioned in List (iii), being the appointees against the posts for which recommendations were sent by the universities to the State Government after the cut-off date or those working against the posts which no recommendations were sent for approval of the State Government, have no right of being considered for absorption-whatever may be the fortuitous circumstances or otherwise in the matter of not sending recommendations for sanction in their cases. The negative report of the Enquiry Commission with regard to List (iii) is accepted and the universities are directed to exclude all such appointees named in List (iii) from consideration for absorption’. 20. Here it is pertinent to indicate that the Hon’ble Apex Court in clear terms observed that posts for which recommendation were sent after the cut-off date related to list (iii) does not deserve any consideration. Further, even those employees who were working against the posts for which no recommendations were sent for approval of the State Government, have no right of being considered for absorption. 21. In view of the noted facts above, the writ petition lacks merit and thus liable to be dismissed. However, considering the observation made by Hon’ble Justice S.B. Sinha (retd.) Commission in the order dated 18.12.2015, the petitioner may approach the University for being absorbed against the vacancy in accordance with law. 22. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands dismissed. Pending I.A.s, if any, also stands disposed of.