JUDGMENT R.B. Misra, J. - This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to challenge the order of the Principal dated 9th May, 1978. 2. The facts leading up to this petition lie in a narrow compass The petitioner took the degree of Master of Arts in Hindi in 1971 from Lucknow University and get high second class obtaining 54.2 per cent. In due course, she obtained Ph. D. degree in the same subject in 1975. 3. Perusal to an advertisement published in the National Harald, dated 30-6-76 regarding two appointments in Hindi department as lecturers, one a permanent post and the other a temporary post likely to be permanent, the petitioner applied for the post of a Lecturer in the department of Hindi in the said college. The petitioner was called for an interview along with the other lady candidates and she was selected by a duly constituted committee, formed under the U.P. State Universities Act. 1973. Two panels were prepared by the Selection Committee. As much turns on the report of the Selection Committee along with rendering of the material portion of the report in so far as is material for this case is quated hereunder : Sixty-three applications have been received for appointment in Hindi Department. Out of them 20 candidates have been called for interview. Twelve candidates appeared who were interviewed according to rules. The Committee had to select candidates for two posts. So the Committee unanimously approved the following candidates : - 1. Dr. Madhu Jain I Km. Nirupa Awasthi I 2. Km. Subha Sharma II Km. Subha Sharma II 3. Km. Rukmini Jain III Km. Rukmini Jain III 4. It was also resolved that in case any of the first post then ad hoc appointments may be made out of the remaining candidates. 5. It is admitted by the parties that none of the two candidates kept at the top on the two panels declined to hold the post for which they had been selected. According to the petitioner, she was selected for the permanent post and the other candidate Kumari Nirupama Awasthi was selected for the temporary post which was newly created by Director of Education (Higher Education) vide letter dated 21-7-76. 6. According to the petitioner, she was selected for the permanent post and the other candidate Kumari Nirupama Awasthi was selected for the temporary post which was newly created by Director of Education (Higher Education) vide letter dated 21-7-76. 6. The letter of appointment issued by Sri Suraj Autar, Secretary of the College, however, indicated that she had ben selected for the post of Lecturer in the department of Hindi up to 30th April, 1977 at present (but likely to continue) on the initial salary of the grade viz Rs. 700-1600 plus D. A. and that her appointment had been approved by the Vice Chancellor, Ruhilkhand University. 7. On petitioners quary the Principal of the College. According to the petitioner, admitted that her appointment was made against a permanent vacancy as she had been selected by a duly constituted Selection Committee. The petitioner joined and resumed work as Lecturer on 8-9-76 against a clear permanent vacancy on 8-9-76. This will be clear from the resolution of the Managing Committee dated 16-8-76 filed as Annexure A-2 to the rejoinder affidavit of the petitioner. The resolution reads the Managing Committee approves unanimously the recommendation of the Selection Committee for the two posts in Hindi 1. Dr. Madhu Jain in place of Km. Sheela Khare. 2. Km. Nirupa Awasthi on the newly created post. 8. This position is further clear from the letter of the Principal dated 1st March, 1978 filed as Annexure R-4 to the rejoinder affidavit of the petitioner. This again reiterates that Kumari Nirupama Awasthi was appointed on the newly created post and the petitioner was appointed on the old permanent post in place of Kumari Sheela Khare. All the same instance of appointing the petitioner on probation on permanent post, the management in its latter of appointment said that the appointment of the petitioner was temporary up to 30th April, 1977 presumably because she was appointed in place of Kumari Sheela Khare whose appointment was approved up to 30th April, 1976 and this period had been extended from time to time, in the first instance up to 30th June, 1977, and again it was extended up to 30th June, 1978. The petitioner ever since her appointment in the college, has been continuously working as Lecturer and was allowed to draw her annual increment of Rs. 40 after a year of her appointment. ' 9. The petitioner ever since her appointment in the college, has been continuously working as Lecturer and was allowed to draw her annual increment of Rs. 40 after a year of her appointment. ' 9. The case of the petitioner is that the Principal of the college Smt. Bimla Shukla wanted to have new appointment in place of the petitioner and that she persuaded Km. Girja Rani Misra, Senior Lecturer in Hindi department to serve a show cause notice dated 5-5-78 making certain allegation, which according to the petitioner, were baseless and without any evidence The petitioner in reply wrote back to Km. Girja Rani Mishra that she had no right to issue show cause notice to the petitioner according to Section 31 (3) (b) of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 inasmuch as the power vests in the Executive Committee or the Management, as the case may be The petitioner, however, also sent a reply to the show cause notice on 8th May, 1978 to Km. Girja Misra with a request that she be allowed to s. e the attendance register to enable her to make an effective reply to incorrect charge levelled against her. Km. Girja Rani Misra, however, forwarded the matter to the Principal Smt. Bimla Shukla for taking necessary action against the petitioner. Eventually the petitioner received a letter from the Principal of the college whereby the petitioner was asked to hand over the charge of the post of Km. Girja Rani Misra, senior lecturer in Hindi department as approved up to 30th June, 1978 and as the session was coming to a close therefore, she was required to hand over the charge till 13th May, 1978. 10. The petitioner brought the correct position of law to the knowledge of the Principal and requested her to allow to resume the duties but to no avail. At long last, the petitioner approached the Vice Chancellor, Rohilkhand University, Bareilly and submitted before him a petition on 27th May, 1978 bringing out the correct legal position. The Vice-Chancellor however, showed his inability to help the petitioner inasmuch as the management had not sent any resolution to him for obtaining his approval for placing the petitioner on probation. The Vice-Chancellor asked the petitioner to approach the Chancellor of the University for immediate relief. The Vice-Chancellor however, showed his inability to help the petitioner inasmuch as the management had not sent any resolution to him for obtaining his approval for placing the petitioner on probation. The Vice-Chancellor asked the petitioner to approach the Chancellor of the University for immediate relief. Consequently, the petitioner submitted a petition to the Chancellor on 5th June, 1978 with a prayer for interim relief by staying the operation of the order dated 9th May, 1978 and for disposal of the representation by the middle of June, 1978 so that she may get relief from court in case she gets no relief from the Chancellor. As no order could be passed by the Chancellor for along time the petitioner approached this court for a relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 11. Before dealing with the points raised before us it will be advisable to refer to certain provisions of the U.P. State Universities Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) material for the appreciation of the points. 12. Section 31 of the Act deals with appointments of teachers and to the extent pertinent reads : - 31. (1) Subject to the provisions of the Act, the teachers of the University and the teachers of an affiliated college (other than a college maintained exclusively by the State or by a local authority) shall be appointed by the Executive Council or the Management of the affiliated or associated college, as the case may be, on the recommendation of a Selection Committee in the manner herein alter provided. (2) The appointment of every such teacher, Director and Principal not being an appointment under such section. (3) Shall in the first instance, be a probation for one year which may be extended for a period not exceeding one year : Provided that no order of termination of service during or on the expiry of the period of probation, shall be pissed (a )......... (b) ......... (3) Shall in the first instance, be a probation for one year which may be extended for a period not exceeding one year : Provided that no order of termination of service during or on the expiry of the period of probation, shall be pissed (a )......... (b) ......... (c) in the case of any other teacher of an affiliated or associated college except by order of the management made after considering the report of the principal and (unless such teacher is the seniormost teacher of the subject) also of the seniormost teacher of the subject) : Provided further that no such order of termination shall be passed except after notice to the teacher concerned giving him an opportunity of explanation in respect of the grounds on which the services are proposed to be terminated : Provided 3 (a) in case of a teacher of the University other than a professor, the Vice-Chancellor, in consultation with the Dean of Faculty and the Head of Department concerned, and an expert nominated by the Chancellor in that behalf and in case of a teacher of an affiliated or associated college the management in consultation with expert nominated by the Vice-chancellor in that behalf, make officiating appointment in a vacancy caused by the grant of leave to an incumbent for a period not exceeding ten months without reference to Selection Committee ; but shall not fill any other vacancy or post likely to last for more than six months without such reference. (b) Where before or after the commencement of this Act, any teacher is appointed (after reference to a Selection Committee) to a temporary post, likely to last for more than six months, and such post is subsequently coveted into a permanent post or to a permanent post in a vacancy caused by the grant of leave to an incumbent for a period exceeding ten months and such post subsequently becomes permanently vacant or any post such of the same cadre and grade is newly created or falls vacant in the same department ; then unless the Ex-Council or the Management, as the case may be, decides to terminate his 'services after giving an opportunity to show cause, it may appoint such teacher in a substantive capacity to that post without reference to a Selection Committee : Provided that this clause shall not apply unless the teacher concerned hold the prescribed qualification for the pest at the time of such substantive appointment ; and he has served continuously for a period of not less than one year after his appointment made after reference to a Selection Committee : Provided further that the appointment in a substantive capacity under this clause of a teacher who had served, before such appointment, continuously for a period of less than two years, shall be on probation for one year, which may be extended for a period not exceeding one year, and the provision of sub-section (2) shall apply accordingly 7-A. It shall be open to the Selection Committee to recommend one or more but not more than three names for each post. 8 (b) In the case of appointment of a teacher of an affiliated or associated college if the management does not agree with the recommendation made by the Selection Committee, the management shall refer the matter to the Vice-Chancellor along with the reasons of such disagreement and his decision shall be final. 10 No section for any appointment under this section shall be made except after advertisement of the vacancy in at least three issues of two newspapers having adequate circulation in U.P. 11 (a) No teacher recommended by the Selection Committee shall be appointed by the management of an affiliated or associated college unless prior approval of the Vice-Chancellor has been obtained. (b) The management shall, as far as possible, after the meeting of the Selection Committee, submit the recommendation of the committee along with relevant documents to the Vice-Chancellor for approval . (c) The Vice-Chancellor, if he is satisfied, that the candidate recommend-ed by the Selection Committee does not possess the minimum qualification or experience prescribed, or that the procedure laid down in the act for the selection of the teacher has not been followed, shall convey to the management his disapproval. 13. Section 68 provides for a reference of a dispute to the Chancellor in certain circumstances : - "If any question arised whether any person has been duly elected or appointed, as or is entitled to be a member of any authority or other body of the University, or whether any decision of any authority or officer of the University including any question as to the validity of a statute ordinance, Regulation, not being a statute or ordinance, made or approved by the State-Court. or by the Chancellor is in conformity with this Act or the Statutes or ordinance made thereafter, the matter shall be referred to the Chancellor and the decision of the Vice Chancellor thereof shall be final : Provided that no reference under this section shall be made : - (a) more than three months after the date when the question could have been raised tor the first time, provided further that the Chancellor may be in exceptional circumstances : - (b) Act sup motu or entertain a reference after the expiry of the period mentioned in the proceeding proviso". 14. Section 31 of the Act provides a complete code regarding the mode of appointment and removal of teachers of the affiliated or associated college of the University. 15. In view of Section 31 (1) of the Act there was an advertisement of the vacancy of the two posts of teachers in the Hindi Department, one a permanent and the other a temporary one. The Selection Committee prepared two panels obviously one for the permanent post and the other for the temporary post. The Selection Committee could not specifically mentioned which panel is for the permanent post and which is for the temporary post. A slight omission in this regard has loomed large and has become the bone of contention. The Selection Committee prepared two panels obviously one for the permanent post and the other for the temporary post. The Selection Committee could not specifically mentioned which panel is for the permanent post and which is for the temporary post. A slight omission in this regard has loomed large and has become the bone of contention. When the report came before the management of the college, if it was in the slightest doubt about the matter it could have got it clarified but it did not choose to do so. It put its own class and sent the report of the Selection Committee which all the relevant papers to the Vice-Chancellor with the following chart for approval. Sahu Gopi Nath Girls Degree College, Bareilly Statement of Candidates Proposed to be Appointed in the Department of Hindi and Education. Name of the candidate Post Salary Qualification Experience Remarks 1. Madhu Jain Lecturer in the Deptt of Hindi. 700 - 1600 P. Hd. (75) M. A. II (71). 54. 2% B. A. Inter and H. S. all good second In place of Km. Sheela approved up to 30th April 1976. 2. Km. Nirumpa Awasthi Do Do. M. A. 1 (57) 73. 1% Vith position in the University B. A. (2978) 69. 6% Gold, Silver and Bronze Medals.-Inter (71) 1st H. S. (69) II Di v. Now apptt. approved by D. E. vide his letter No. Earth/ 13007 7-10/ 76-77 dated 21st July 1976. 3. Km. Rupa Satsangi Lecturer in the Deptt. of Education Do. M. Ed. (76) 61% B. A. 1 (72) Inter and H. S. Good second. In place of Smt. Abha Matbur permanent lecturer resigned with 3 months notices due to private reasons. The Vice-Chancellor in bis turn approved the appointment of the following under Section 31 (11) of the U P. State Universities Act in these words:- 1. Dr. Madhu Jain temporary up to 3Uth April, 1977. 2. Km. Nirupa Awasthi temporary up to 30th April, 1977. 16. The Selection Committee in its report did not say that the petitioner was appointed on a temporary post for a fixed term. Indeed the Selection Committee had to recommend the name of two persons, one for the permanent post and the other for the temporary post (newly created by the Director of Education Higher) obviously therefore the first panel was for the permanent and the other for the temporary post. Indeed the Selection Committee had to recommend the name of two persons, one for the permanent post and the other for the temporary post (newly created by the Director of Education Higher) obviously therefore the first panel was for the permanent and the other for the temporary post. But the management of the college while recommending the report of the Selection Committee to the Vice-Chancellor for approval gave the following remarks against the petitioner in the remarks column. "In place of Kumari Sheela, approved up to 30th April, 19/6 presumably on this basis the Vice-Chancellor approved the appointment of the petitioner up to 30th April, 1977. 17. The only power that the Act confers on the Vice-Chancellor is either to approve or disapprove. He can disapprove the recommendation of the Selection Committee only in two circumstances as contemplated by 31 (11) (c) of the Act, when the candidate recommended by the Selection Committee does not posses the minimum qualification or experience prescribed, or that the procedure laid down in the Act for the Selection of the teacher has not been followed. 18. Likewise Section 8 (b) of the Act provides that if the management does not agree with the recommendation made by the Selection Committee, the management shall refer the matter to the Vice-Chancellor along with the reasons of such disagreement and his decision shall be final. 19. In the instant case the management of the college did not disagree with the report of the Selection Committee and so there was no question of reference within the meaning of Section 8 (b) of the Act. The Management was bound to send the recommendation of the Selection Committee with necessary material on record for approval to the Vice-Chancellor as indeed was done by the management. 20. In the circumstances the only order that could have been passed by the Vice-Chancellor is of approval inasmuch as it is no bodys case that the petitioner did not satisfy the minimum qualification prescribed or that the procedure laid down in the Act for the Selection of the teacher had not been followed: 21. Once it it established that the Selection Committee had recommended the petitioner for the permanent post ; the petitioner could be appointed only on probation for one year in view of Section 31 (2). 22. Once it it established that the Selection Committee had recommended the petitioner for the permanent post ; the petitioner could be appointed only on probation for one year in view of Section 31 (2). 22. On the strength of Section 31 (2) of the Act it is contended for the petitioner that her appointment will be taken to be an appointment on probation for one year despite what had been said in the appointment letter. This period was subsequently extended by 30th June, 1978 with the result that she will be deemed to be confirmed on that post which was a permanent post and on which the petitioner was recommended for appointment with the reservation. 23. As regards the other candidate Km. Nirupama Awasthi is concerned, she was appointed on the newly created post which was temporary and likely to become permanent. 24. Sri L. P. Niaintbani for the Vice-Chancellor raised an objection that the petitioner has an alternative remedy and the writ petition is not maintainable. 25. Learned counsel for the management of the college on the other hand has advanced four-fold arguments : (1) That the petitioner has an alternative remedy which she has already availed and, therefore, writ petition is not maintainable in view of Article 225 (3) of the constitution. He strongly relied upon Section 58 of the Act. (2) in the appointment letter it was made crystal clear that her appointment was only for a period up to 30th June, 1977 and the petitioner did not raise her little finger against that letter of appointment or against the order of the Vice-Chancellor approving for appointment till 30th June, 1977. This period was subsequently extended up to 30th June, 1978 which she ungrudingly accepted and she is, therefore, now estopped from challenging the name (3) in the absence of any specification by the Selection Committee as to which panel is for permanent post and which is for the temporary one, it is not open to this court to usurp the function of the Selection Committee and to hold otherwise ; and (a) the petitioner has not challenged the order of the Vice-Chancellor approving her appointment only up to 30th June, 1977 and therefore, that order cannot be quashed in the absence of any such prayer, 26. To take the first contention first, it may be pointed out that prior to the 42nd Amendment of the Constitution alternative remedy was not an absolute bar. It is only by that amendment which was brought in 42nd Amending Act, 1976 that it became an absolute bar. Sub-clause (3) of Article 226 of the Constitution is in absolute term and this court has no discretion to ignore that. In this background it has to be examined whether Section 68 of the U.P. Universities Act provides an alternative remedy. Section 68 provides, inter alia, that if any question arises whether any decision of any authority or officer of the University is in conformity with this Act or the statutes or the ordinance, made thereunder the matter shall be referred to he Chancellor and the decision of the Chancellor thereon shall be final : Provided that no reference under this section shall be made : - (a) More than three months after the date when the question could have been raised for the first time : Provided further that the Chancellor may in exceptional circumstances, act suo moto or entertain a reference after the expiry of the period mentioned in the preceding proviso. Chapter IV of the Act deals with the officers of the University. 27. Sri R. N. Bhalla, however, contends that Section 68 has absolutely no application to the facts of the present case and, therefore, the petitioner has no alternative remedy of approaching the Chancellor. We are afraid the contention has no force. The petitioner had a grievance against the order of the Vice-Chancellor approving the appointment of the petitioner for a fixed period on a temporary basis. Vice-Chancellor is an officer of the University within the meaning of Section 9 of the U.P. State Universities Act, and such Section 68 of the U.P. Universities Act, is attracted. But there is a more cogent reason for holding that the petitioner had no alternative remedy. The proviso to Section 68 provides that no reference can be made after the expiry of more than three months after the date when the question could have been raised for the first time. But there is a more cogent reason for holding that the petitioner had no alternative remedy. The proviso to Section 68 provides that no reference can be made after the expiry of more than three months after the date when the question could have been raised for the first time. More than three months had already elapsed when the petitioner approached the Chancellor and as such the petitioner had lost her right of making a reference to the Chancellor on the date when the 42nd Amendment of the Constitution came in force. The Chancellor suo motu might entertain a reference after the expiry of the period. That power, however, is not the right of the petitioner. The petitioner then had no alternative remedy available to her at the time she came to this court to invoke the power under Article 226 of the Constitution. 28. It is thus clear that the petitioner had no alternative remedy available to stand as a bar to invoking power under Article 226 of the Constitution after the enforcement of 42nd Amendment of the Constitution. 29. This leads us to the second contention. It is true that the letter of appointment is a contract between the incumbent and the authority and if the petitioner accepted the letter of appointment without any grudge or protest can he be allowed to challenge the same at a later date or will estoppel; work against the petitioner? 30. It is well established principle of law that there is no estoppel against a statute. If the statute contemplates that the appointment on a permanent post must be on probation the management in our opinion was not right in appointing the petitioner on the post for a fixed period as a temporary hand nor was the Vice Chancellor justified in approving the recommendation of the Selection Committee by altering its terms. The Selection Committee had never recommended that the petitioner be appointed for one year. 31. According to the petitioner she was assured by the Principal and the management that she need not worry. She would become permanent in due course. Her stand will be clear from the representation made by her to the Vice-Chancellor and the Chancellor copies where of have been filed as annexures to the petition. 32. In the view of the matter there can be no estoppel against the petitioner in invoking her legal right. 33. She would become permanent in due course. Her stand will be clear from the representation made by her to the Vice-Chancellor and the Chancellor copies where of have been filed as annexures to the petition. 32. In the view of the matter there can be no estoppel against the petitioner in invoking her legal right. 33. The third contention is that in the absence of any specification by the Selection Committee as to which panel was for the permanent post and which one for the temporary post, it is not possible for this court to assume the panel in which the petitioner was on the top as one for the permanent post. 34. As pointed out earlier that a slight omission in the report of the Selection Committee has given rise to all sorts of controversy. In normal course it is expected that the Selection Committee would held selection according to the requirement in the advertisement. The advertisement contemplated selection of candidates for two posts. One permanent and temporary service. The first panel which started on the left side must be for the permanent post and the one on the right side for the temporary post. This fact is clarified by the various letters of the management of the college that Km. Nirupa Awasthi, the other candidate was selected for the temporary post which was newly created. The result arrived by us follows as a corollery. 35. Now we take up the last point. The contention raised on behalf of the management that in the absence of a prayer in the writ petition, the order of the Vice-Chancellor cannot be challenged. It is true that the only prayer made in the petition is for quashing the order dated 9-5-78 passed by the Principal asking the Senior Lecturer Km. Girja Rani Misra to take charge from the petitioner with copy forwarded to the petitioner. If the material facts have been given in the petition and there is not much dispute in the facts, the court can grant the suitable reliefs as the' exigencies of the situation demand. There is no dearth of power in the court of modilating the relief of the petitioner if it is satisfied that the impugned order of the Vice-Chancellor and the consequential order of management based on the order of Vice-Chancellor suffers from a manifest error of Jaw. 36. There is no dearth of power in the court of modilating the relief of the petitioner if it is satisfied that the impugned order of the Vice-Chancellor and the consequential order of management based on the order of Vice-Chancellor suffers from a manifest error of Jaw. 36. For the reasons given above, we are satisfied that the order of the Vice-Chancellor approving the appointment of the petitioner up to 30th June, 1977 on a temporary basis suffers from a manifest error of law. The petitioner was selected for a permanent post of lecturer, and, therefore her appointment will be deemed to be on probation for one year and the same probationary period will be deemed to have been extended up to 30th June 1978 and the order of the Principal asking the petitioner to hand over charge on 13th May, 1978 ate all illegal and must be quashed. 37. In the result the writ petition must succeed which is allowed and the order of the Vice-Chancellor (attached as an manure to the counter-affidavit) approving the appointment of the petitioner in so far as it fixes the period up to 30th April, 1977 subsequently extended up to 30th June, 1979 and the consequential order of the Principal dated 9-5-79 are quashed.