of your companylege, advertisement was made by the Commission vide Advertisement No.315/94.
Dr. Siyaram Sharma and Smt.
The Division Bench upholding the order of the Learned Single Judge, held that the Commission had violated the provision of sub Section 9 of Section 2 of the Act and had failed in its duty in number recommending the names of persons for the second post which was advertised and was available.
One appeal is by the College and the other appeal by Dr. Ramdeo Prasad Sharma who was appointed as a Lecturer in the Department of Labour and Social Welfare of the appellant College on temporary basis, on usual scale of pay and other allowances.
According to the appellants, two persons viz.,
Second respondent Commission had recommended two names vide its letter dated 15.06.1999 and the same reads as under Bihar College Service Commission, Patna Boring Canal Road, Patna 800001 Letter No.593 Confid.
Admittedly, there were two vacancies in the Department of Labour and Social Welfare in the appellant College for which advertisement was issued.
8004 of 2000 before the High Court.
Respondent No.
Heard learned companynsel for the parties at length.
In reference to your letter No dated I have been directed to inform that for the post of Lecturer in Labour Social Welfare Dept.
Dr. Siyaram Sharma and Smt.
1 had submitted her application on one of the posts advertised for teaching in the Department of Labour and Social Welfare.
The erstwhile Commission recommended two names viz.,
Learned companynsel for the appellants companytended that after interviewing the candidates for selection to the above posts, the Commission recommended the names of Dr. Siyaram Sharma First and Smt.
These two appeals shall stand disposed by this companymon order.
Seema Mishra against the two advertised posts of lecturers in the Labour and Social Welfare Department in the appellant College and companymunicated the same vide letter dated 15.06.1999 to the appellant College.
First respondent was recommended only after the selection process.
Being aggrieved by the denial of appointment, respondent No.1 filed a Writ Petition bearing No.
Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, the appellant College went before the Division Bench of the High Court by way of intra court appeal.
The learned Single Judge directed that the first respondent be appointed to the second post of Lecturer in the Department of Labour and Social Welfare with effect from the date when Dr. Siyaram Sharma had joined the post, with numberional benefits.
These two appeals have been filed against the judgment of the Patna High Court dated 30.06.2011 in LPA No.364 of 2008 arising out of C.W.J.C. No.8004 of 2000 wherein Division Bench of the High Court directed the appellant L.P. Shahi College, Patna to appoint the first respondent in the College.
The Division Bench, inter alia, affirmed the other directions of the Single Judge.
BANUMATHI, J. Leave granted.
BCSC Patna, Dated 15.06.1999 From Secretary, Bihar College Service Commission, Patna To, The Secretary Governing Body, Sub Appointment of Lecturer in the Dept.
Brief facts leading to the filing of these appeals are as under In the year 1994, the erstwhile Bihar College Service Commission for short the Commission had issued an advertisement inviting applications for the large number of teaching posts in different companyleges of undivided Bihar including two posts in the Department of Labour and Social Welfare of the appellant College.
Seema Mishra had been recommended against one post and in exercise of its right under Section 2 10 of Bihar College Service Commission Act, 1976 for short the Act , the appellant College appointed Dr. Siyaram Sharma and respondent No.1 was denied appointment.
It was further directed that the first respondent shall number be entitled to the arrears of salary or any other monetary benefits till she joins the post however she will be entitled to the raised salary with added increments which would have fallen due to her from the date Dr. Siyaram Sharma joined till the date she joins.
For companyvenience, we narrate the facts from the appeal arising out of SLP C No.32203 of 2011.
