University control over absorption in taken-over colleges is distinct from normal recruitment rules under the Bihar Universities Act.

The statutory scheme distinguishes normal recruitment in affiliated colleges from absorption of staff in colleges taken over as constituent colleges. Section 35 governs ordinary appointments requiring prior State approval, while section 4(14) applies to takeover arrangements and vests the university with exclusive authority to examine appointments and decide absorption, subject to scrutiny of legality and regularity. For absorption, only employees working against sanctioned posts or against posts for which proposals had reached the State before the cut-off date were eligible for consideration; claims based on pending university-level proposals or later recommendations were excluded. The later amendments were treated as prospective, and the operative government decisions were not displaced by objections based on prior approval or formal authentication.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the power to decide absorption of staff of affiliated colleges converted into constituent colleges lay with the university under section 4(14) or with the State under section 35 of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976; (ii) which categories of employees were entitled to consideration for absorption on the basis of the government decisions and the enquiry commission report; and (iii) whether the impugned appointments and government orders could be treated as invalid for want of prior approval or formal authentication.

Issue (i): Whether the power to decide absorption of staff of affiliated colleges converted into constituent colleges lay with the university under section 4(14) or with the State under section 35 of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976.

Analysis: Section 35 governs the normal creation of posts and appointments in affiliated colleges and requires prior approval of the State Government. Section 4(14), by contrast, operates when a university takes over an institution with its assets, liabilities and staff under an agreement. The non obstante clause in section 4(14) was construed harmoniously with section 35 so that each provision operates in its own field. In matters of absorption of staff of taken over colleges, the university has the exclusive jurisdiction to examine appointments and decide absorption, though it may consider the legality or regularity of the appointments and the absence of prior approval.

Conclusion: The power to decide absorption of existing staff of converted constituent colleges lies with the concerned university under section 4(14), and section 35 does not control that process.

Issue (ii): Which categories of employees were entitled to consideration for absorption on the basis of the government decisions and the enquiry commission report.

Analysis: The Court accepted the enquiry commission report to the extent it identified employees working against sanctioned posts and against posts for which proposals had reached the State Government before the cut-off date. It rejected claims based on proposals still pending only at the university level, and also rejected claims of those appointed against posts for which recommendations were sent after the cut-off date or for which no recommendations had been sent. The Court also accepted the rejection of the revised screening list found to be tainted by interpolation and tampering, while leaving individual qualification issues to be examined by the universities in accordance with the relevant statute and rules.

Conclusion: Only employees in list no. (i) and list no. (ii) were entitled to consideration for absorption, while list no. (iii) was excluded.

Issue (iii): Whether the impugned appointments and government orders could be treated as invalid for want of prior approval or formal authentication.

Analysis: The Court held that the subsequent statutory amendments of 1990 and 1993 were prospective and supported the distinction between normal recruitment and absorption in taken over colleges. It further held that the objections to the government orders dated 01.02.1988 and 18.12.1989 could not be accepted in these proceedings, and that the State could not resile from its own decisions merely because of a change in government. The question of formal authentication under Article 166 did not defeat the operative effect of the government decisions in the context of this case.

Conclusion: The appointments and government decisions were not invalidated on the grounds urged by the State.

Final Conclusion: The statutory scheme was held to place absorption of staff of taken over colleges within the universities' domain, and the universities were directed to complete the absorption exercise in accordance with the report of the enquiry commission and the Court's interpretation of the Act.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute separately regulates normal recruitment to affiliated colleges and absorption of staff of colleges taken over as constituent colleges, the latter falls within the university's exclusive decision-making power, and the two non obstante clauses must be harmoniously confined to their respective fields.

---