JUDGMENT J.M.L. Sinha, J. - This petition has been filed by Dr. U.N. Roy, herein after called the `petitioner', under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for the issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order of the Chancellor dated 28th February, 1980 as also the proceedings of the Executive Council dated 13th January, 1980. 2. The facts giving rise to this petition are a little vexed and require being mentend in some detail. 3. The University Grants Commission, by its letter dated 10th of September, 1971, notified the creation of some posts in the Allahabad University, including the post of a reader in the Department of Ancient History, Culture and Archaeology. In the year 1979, after the sanction of the State Government was obtained, an advertisement was issued in order to fill that post. The University constituted a selection committee, which consisted of : (i) The Vice-Chancellor. (ii) The Head of the Department Dr. G.R. Sharma. (iii) Sri B.S. Upadhyay (iv) Sri B P. Panthari - Experts. (v) Sri A.B.L. Awasthi 4. The petitioner, the respondent No. 4 and one Dr. Vinod Chandra Sinha, applied for the same. The petitioner and the respondent No. 4 appeared before the Selection Committee while Dr. Sinha, desired to be considered in absantia. Vide its recommendation dated 23rd November, 1979, the Selection Committee unanimously recommended the name of the petitioner for appoint merit. The majority members of the Selection Committee did not recommend any other name. The Chairman of the Selection Committee, viz : the Vice-Chancellor and one member, namely, Sri A.B.L. Awasthi, however, made a not8 in the proceedings of the Selection Committee that Dr. Aogane Lal (respondent No. 4) should be given 2nd place in the selection. A copy of the proceedings of the Selection Committee is Annexure 5 to the writ petition. The Executive Council, of the University, which is the competent body for making appointment, considered the recommendation of the Selection Committee in its meeting held on 13th January, 1980. One member of the Executive Council, namely, Dr. Sinha moved a resolution hat the recommendation of the Selection Committee for appointment of the petitioner be accepted. The resolution was seconded by Sri Mool Chandra Mehrotra but rejected by seven votes in favour and eight votes against it. The facts so far stand admitted between the parties but beyond it there ti a sharp controversy. Sinha moved a resolution hat the recommendation of the Selection Committee for appointment of the petitioner be accepted. The resolution was seconded by Sri Mool Chandra Mehrotra but rejected by seven votes in favour and eight votes against it. The facts so far stand admitted between the parties but beyond it there ti a sharp controversy. According to the petitioner only one resolution was moved in the meeting of the Executive Council on 13th January, 1980 and it was for accepting the recommendation made by the Selection Committee regarding his appointment. The petitioner maintains that though the resolution for accepting his appointment of the Selection Committee regarding his appointment was defeated in the Executive Council by one vote, no other resolution whatsoever was moved in the meeting of the Executive Council that day regarding the appointment of Dr. Angane Lal and that tampering was done in the minutes of the Executive Council dated 13th January, 1980 later on make it appear that a resolution was moved for the appointment of Dr. Angane Lal and was accepted. 5. According to respondent No. 4, however, a further resolution for his appointment was moved by Sri Chunni Lal and was accepted. 6. On 28th January, 1990 the Registrar sent a latter to the Chancellor annexing therewith a copy of the minutes of the meeting of the Executive Council's decision. The latter reached the Chancellor's office on 30th January, 1980. 7. On the same date as aforesaid viz : 28th January, 1980, four members of the Executive Council, namely, Dr. D. Sinha, Dr. G.R. Sharma, Sri S.N. Prasad and Dr. P.R. Bhattacharya sent a letter to the Chancellors stating that there was a dispute about the correctness of the minutes sent to him and that no action be taken on the basis of those unconfirmed minutes. This letter reached the Chancellor s office on 29th January, 1980. On 29th January, 1980 the same four members of the Executive Council sent another letter to the Chancellor that the copy of the resolution sent by the Vice-Chancellor was not the correct copy. They enclosed a photostat copy of the resolution of the Executive Council saying that it was the correct copy. This copy did not carry the resolution of Sri Chunni Lal regarding the appointment of respondent No. 4. They enclosed a photostat copy of the resolution of the Executive Council saying that it was the correct copy. This copy did not carry the resolution of Sri Chunni Lal regarding the appointment of respondent No. 4. the four signatories to the letter requested the Chancellor not to take any action on the incorrect copy sent by the Vice-Chancellor and to institute an immediate enquiry as to why the minutes were changed. This letter was received In the office of the Chancellor on 30th January, 1980. 8. On 30th January, 1980 four members of the Selection Committee viz. B.S. Upadhyaya, Dr. G.R. Sharma, B.P. Panthari and A.B.L. Awasthi sent a letter (Annexre IX of the writ petition) to the Registrar that the only name recommended by them for post of Reader in the Department of Ancient History, Culture and Archaeology was that of the petitioner and that no other name was recommended by a them. One copy of this letter was forwarded to the Chancellor. 9. On 11th February, 1980, seven members of the Executive Council viz. Sarvsri Dr, D. Sinha, G.R. Sharma, S.N. Panthari, P.R. Bhattacharya, M.C. Maherish, A.D. Pant, and Smt. Mahadevi Verma sent a letter in this connection to the Registrar. The relevant part of this letter reads as under:- "There was no further discussion on the subject and no resolution other than Prof. Sinha's was put to vote nor accepted by the Executive Council. The following portion of the minutes "Thereafter the resolution of Ch. Chunni Lal was put to vote and eight members voted for accepting it. It was therefore decided that the resolution be referred to the Chancellor for decision is wholly incorrect and therefore, it be deleted." 10. On 17-2-1980 Smt. Mahadevi Verma, who was also a member of the Executive Council sent a letter to the Vice-Chancellor respondent No. 2 (Annexure 11 to the writ petition) expressing her inability to attend the next meeting of the Executive Council and stating:- "Gat baithak ki karvahi ko dekhne par mujhe gyathua hai ki ek pristao jo prachin Itihas Vibhag ke Professor ki myokti ke sambadh men tha jo vohan parit nahin hua tha. voh bad men jora gaya hai". 11. The letter further states that such unbecoming acts adversely affect the prestige of the University and its authorities and hence the matter begot enquired into and interpolated portion be deleted. 12. voh bad men jora gaya hai". 11. The letter further states that such unbecoming acts adversely affect the prestige of the University and its authorities and hence the matter begot enquired into and interpolated portion be deleted. 12. When the Executive Council's meeting was convened on 17-2-1980 to confirm the minute, of the meeting held on 13th January, 1980 some members raised objection about the correctness of the minutes regarding the appointment in question. Thereafter on 17-2-1980., four members of the Executive Council viz Dr. Sinha, M.C. Maherish Dr G.R. Sharma, and S.N Panthari sent a letter(Annexure 12 to the writ petition) to the Chancellor, inter alia, stating has after the resolution regarding the appointment of the petitioner was defeated no other resolution was moved or put to vote It was prayed that the record of notes and drafts of minutes be got sealed and a thorough enquiry be got made by an independent machinery. Copies of this letter were sent to the Chief Minister, Education Minister and Education Secretary. 13. On 18th February, 1980 the petitioner sent a representation Annexure 12 to the writ petition) to the Chancellor respondent No. 1 stating inter alia, that the respondent No. 4, did not possess necessary qualifications, that the Selection Committee forwarded only his name for appointment to the cost in question but the resolution was defeated by the Executive Council and the matter had been referred to him (the Chancellor, respondent No. 1) for final Son It was further stated that as the correct facts had not been noted in the reference made to the respondent No. I, he may be granted an interview before final decision was taken in the matter. 14. On 28th February, 1980, however, the Chancellor passed the following order on the reference that was made to him under Section 31 of the State Universities Act :. "The reference made by the Executive Council relating to Dr. A. Lal may be appointed as Professor of Ancient History, Department of Allahabad University. (Sd)-G.D. Tapase 26-2-80". 15. This decision of the respondent No. 1 was conveyed to the Registrar through'letter dated 28th February, 1980 (Annexure 14), 16. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner has come up before this Court. 17. "The reference made by the Executive Council relating to Dr. A. Lal may be appointed as Professor of Ancient History, Department of Allahabad University. (Sd)-G.D. Tapase 26-2-80". 15. This decision of the respondent No. 1 was conveyed to the Registrar through'letter dated 28th February, 1980 (Annexure 14), 16. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner has come up before this Court. 17. The Chancellor, the Vice-Chancellor, the Executive Council and the Registrar of the Allahabad University, even though impleaded as parties, have not filed any counter-affidavit, Sri S.N. Upadhyaya, Advocate who represented them however, remained present in court during the hearing of the case. He made available to us the record of the office of the Chancellor as well as the record of the University pertaining to the appointment in question. Since mala-fide allegations were made against the then Chancellor, he was impleaded by name but no counter-affidavit was filed by him. The petition has been resisted only by Dr. Angane Lal, respondent No. 4. 18. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent No. 4, it is averred that he possesses requisite qualification for appointment and that while the Selection Committee recommended the petitioner at serial No. 1. his name was recommended at serial No. 2. According to the respondent No. 4 no interpolation was done in the minutes of the meeting of the Executive Council and that the resolution of the Executive Council as well as the order passed by the Chancellor are perfectly in order. 19. Learned counsel for the petitioner in his arguments before us raised the following points (i) That the resolution passed by the Executive council, rejecting the recommendation of the Selection Committee inregard to the appointment of the petitioner, is invalid because it does not carry any reason. (ii) That no resolution was ever put before the Executive Council regarding the appointment of respondent No. 4 and that in the minutes of the Executive Council dated 13-1-1980 interpolation had been made to make it appear that a resolution was moved and accepted by the Executive Council in regard to the appointment of respondent No. 4. (iii) That in any case the Executive Council could not consider the case of the respondent No. 4 as his name was cot recommended by the Selection Committee. (iv) That the respondent No. 4 did not even possess requisite qualification. (iii) That in any case the Executive Council could not consider the case of the respondent No. 4 as his name was cot recommended by the Selection Committee. (iv) That the respondent No. 4 did not even possess requisite qualification. (v) That the order passed by the Chancellor is bad in law because : (a) it is not a speaking order, and (b) the name of the respondent No. 4 not having been recommended by the Selection Committee, the Chancellor could not approve the resolution of the Executive Council for the appointment, 20. We may take the last argument first. According to Section 31 (8) (a) of the State University Act when the Executive Council does not agree with the recommendation made by the Selection Committee, it shall refer the matter to the Chancellor along with reasons of such disagreement for his decision. The relevant part of sub-section (8) (a) of Section 31 reads as follows "(a) In the case of appointment of a teacher of the University, if the Executive Council does not agree with the recommendation made by the Selection Committee, the Executive Council shall refer the matter to the Chancellor along with the reasons of such disagreement, and his decision shall be final. Provided that if the Executive Council does not take a decision on the recommendations of the Selection Committee within a period of four months from the date of the meeting of such Committee, then also the matter shall stand referred to the Chancellor." 21. The letter annexure 14 to the writ petition sent from the Chancellor Secretariat to the University merely stated that: - "The Chancellor has been pleased to accept the recommendations of the Executive Council and direct that Dr. Angane Lal be appointed as Professor of Aacient History, Culture and Archaeology". No copy of the order passed by the Chancellor was annexed with it. Learned counsel for the Chancellor made available to us the record of the Chancellor's Office. On a perusal thereof we could find that the order written by Chancellor in the file is also extremely brief. It reads as under:- "The reference made by the Executive Council relating to Dr. A. Lal may be appointed as Professor of Ancient History, Department of Allahabad University." Sd. G.D; Tapase. 26-2-1980." 22. On a perusal thereof we could find that the order written by Chancellor in the file is also extremely brief. It reads as under:- "The reference made by the Executive Council relating to Dr. A. Lal may be appointed as Professor of Ancient History, Department of Allahabad University." Sd. G.D; Tapase. 26-2-1980." 22. Learned counsel for the petitioner stressed that, while acting under sub-section (8) of Section 31 of the State University Act, the Chancellor acts as Arbitrator to settle the conflict between the Selection Committee and the Executive Council and, his function in that capacity therefore is of quasi -judicial nature. Learned counsel added that it was, therefore, obligatory for him to give reasons in his order. Learned counsel pointed out that there were several points to be considered by the Chancellor in the present case before he could reach a conclusion. According to learned counsel, the questions that the Chancellor had to consider whether the respondent No. 4 possessed necessary qualification ; whether the Selection Committee had also recommended his name ; whether the Executive council passed any resolution in regard to respondent No. 4, or the minutes of the meeting in so far as they carried the resolution relating to the said respondent were result of forgery and interpolation ; and, whether the Executive Council could pass a resolution recommending appointment of respondent No. 4 be if no recommendation was made by the Selection Committee for his appointment. Learned counsel stressed that Chancellor passed a cryptic order accepting the resolution regarding the appointment of the respondent No. 4 without adverting to any of the aforesaid questions. 23. As opposed to the above, learned counsel for the respondents tried to urge before us that, while deciding the reference, the Vice-Chancellor was not acting as a quasi-judicial authority and, consequently, it "was not necessary for him to give the reasons. According to the learned counsel for the respondent No. 4, the Chancellor was acting in an administrative capacity while doing so, and, hance the omission to give reasons cannot vitiate the order. We are, not at all impressed with this argument, it is apparent on a mere reading of Section 31 (8) (a) of the State University Act that reference is made to the Chancellor to resolve the dispute between the Selection Committee and the Executive Council. We are, not at all impressed with this argument, it is apparent on a mere reading of Section 31 (8) (a) of the State University Act that reference is made to the Chancellor to resolve the dispute between the Selection Committee and the Executive Council. It is, thus, the function of an Arbitrator that is entrusted to the Chancellor by Section 31 (8) (a). Consequently, it can admit of no doubt whatsoever that the Chancellor acts in a quasi-judicial manner while deciding the reference. That being so, it is necessary for him to give reasons for his decision. In the instant case, it was all the more necessary because a number of objections had been raised and the Chancellor could not legitimately reach a conclusion without applying his mind to these objections. In view of the order that we proposes to issue, it will not be expedient for us to express our opinion on the merits or dement of those objections. We may, however, refer to some of them in order to high light that objections raised were of serious nature and required to be examined before taking a decision in the reference. 24. One of the objections raised was that in view of the mandate contained in Section 31 (8) (a) of the Act, it was necessary for the Executive Council to give reasons for its disagreement with the recommendation made by the Selection Committee for the petitioner's appointment and, since the resolution of the Executive Council did not contain any reasons, it was bad in law. Reliance for this argument was placed on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Dr. Devendra Datta Tiwari v. Chancellor Samdnrnanand Sanskri Vishwa Vidyalay, (1978 ALR 409). Learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to some other resolutions of the Executive Council (Annexures 24, 25 and 33 of the rejoinder affidavit and pointed out that while passing those resolutions detailed reasons for disagreement were given by the Executive Council. 25. In view of the language contained in sub-section (8) la) of Section 31 of the State University Act, it cannot be gainsaid that the Executive Council must give reasons for disagreement with the recommendation made by the Selection Committee. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 4. also did not challenge this provision. 25. In view of the language contained in sub-section (8) la) of Section 31 of the State University Act, it cannot be gainsaid that the Executive Council must give reasons for disagreement with the recommendation made by the Selection Committee. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 4. also did not challenge this provision. The stand taken by him, however, was that since the resolution passed by the Executive Council states that the respondent No. 4 was better qualified, it was sufficient compliance of sub-section (8) (a) of Section 31 of the State University Act. Now whether it was a sufficient compliance of Section 31 (8) (a) of the Act had to be examined. 26. Yet another objection raised was that the Executive Council passed no resolution for the appointment of respondent No. 4., that forgery and interpolation have been done in inserting a resolution of that nature in the proceedings of the Executive Council. The objection, further, was that since no resolution, in fact, was passed recommending appointment of respondent No. 4, the Chancellor could not pass the impugned order. We sent for the record of the University to find if there could be any basis for this allegation of forgery and interpolation or it was wholly frivolous. We found that a type written paper has been passed on page 6 of the minutes, which reads as under "(7) The Council considered the report of the Selection Committee, under the Faculty of Acts, dated 23rd November, 1979 for the appointment of Professor in Ancient History, Culture and Archaeology. The Registrar read out the recommendation of the Selection Committee. Prof. D. Sinha moved the following resolution which was seconded by Sri M. C. Mehrotra : "Resolved that the recommendation of the Selection Committee for the appointment of Dr. U. N. Roy be accepted." Another resolution was moved by Ch. Chunni Lal as under and it was seconded by Sri S. N. Agarwal - "Resolved that the other candidate namely Dr. Angance Lal placed at No. 2. be placed first in view of his better qualifications and Dr. U. N. Roy be placed second." The resolution of Prof. D. Sinha was :put to vote first and seven votes were recorded in ; its favour. Thereafter the resolution of Ch. Chunni Lal was put to vote and eight members voted for accepting it. be placed first in view of his better qualifications and Dr. U. N. Roy be placed second." The resolution of Prof. D. Sinha was :put to vote first and seven votes were recorded in ; its favour. Thereafter the resolution of Ch. Chunni Lal was put to vote and eight members voted for accepting it. It was, therefore, decided that the resolution be referred to the Chancellor for decition." 27. By seeing the paper from the reverse side against the light it becomes apparent that the aforesaid paper was pasted to cover what was originally written underneath. The language underneath can be deciphered putting light on one side of it aDd a looking glass on the other. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 conceded that the language underneath was the same as is contained against item No. 7 of annexure 6 of the writ petition. For ready reference we may quote the same. It is as follows "7 The council considered the report of the Selection Committee under the Faculty of Arts, dated 23rd November, 1979 for the appointment of Professor in Ancient History Culture and Archaeology. The Registrar read out the recommendation of the Selection Committee which had recommended unanimously the name of Dr. U.N. Roy M.A.D. Phil, for the appointment of Professor in Ancient History, Culture and Archaeology. Prof. D. Sinha moved the following resolution which was seconded by Shri M C. Mehrotra-- "Resolved that the recommendation of the Selection Committee for the Appointment of Dr. U. N. Roy, be accepted. The resolution of Prof. D. Sinha was put to vote which was rejected by one vote. Seven votes in favour and eight votes against the resolution." 28. From the above, it would appear that the language existing underneath the pasted paper does not carry any mention of the resolution of Sri. Chunni Lal. It is also significant that no page of the minutes of the meeting of the Executive Council dated 13th January, 1980 carried any signatures except the first page, which contains the signatures of the Registrar on the margins, and the last page which contains the signatures of the Vice-Chancellor. At the end of the minutes, the name of the Registrar is typed by it does not carry any signatures. There are no initials even at the place where the paper had been pasted. , 29. At the end of the minutes, the name of the Registrar is typed by it does not carry any signatures. There are no initials even at the place where the paper had been pasted. , 29. The lerned council for the University also made available to us on our request the Short-hand Note-book in which the steno had taken dictation of the proceedings of the meeting of the Executive Council held on 13th January, 1980, Even in that short-hand note-book, there is no mention of the resolution moved by Chunni Lal relating to the appointment of the respondent No. 4. 30. Thus the appearance of the minutes of the Executive Council, coupled with the short-hand Note book produced by the University before us and letters sent by members of the Executive Council to the Chancellor and the Registrar made out a very strong case for enquiry as to whether the minutes that were sent to the Chancellor were genuine or the resolution relating to the appointment of respondent No. 4, had been inserted therein by interpolation, Obviously, if no resolution was moved for appointment of respondent No. 4, and the minutes were interpolated* to insert a resolution in that regard., the Chancellor could not make an order for appointment of respondent No. 4. It was, therefore, imperative for the Chancellor to make enquiry into the matter before making an order on the reference. 31. And even if the Chancellor had come to the conclusion that the minutes of the meeting of the Executive Council, as forwarded to him, were genuine and that a resolution had in fact been moved and passed for the appointment of respondent No. 4, the Chancellor had further to examine whether the name of respondent No. 4 had been recommended by the Selection Committee and, if not, whether the Executive Council could pass a resolution recommending his appointment. This point was expressly raised in the letter sent by the members of the Selection Committee to the Registrar (Annexure 9 to the writ petition). This question was also raised by the petitioner in the representation sent by him to the Chancellor. 32. A perusal of the proceedings of Selection Committee copy annexure 5 to the writ petition shows that the name of petitioner was unanimously recommended by the Selection Committee. This question was also raised by the petitioner in the representation sent by him to the Chancellor. 32. A perusal of the proceedings of Selection Committee copy annexure 5 to the writ petition shows that the name of petitioner was unanimously recommended by the Selection Committee. Only two out of five members of the Selection Committee made an endorsement that the name of respondent No. 4 be given second place. The fact that the Selection Committee unanimously recommended the name of the petitioner alone and that only two of the members expressed opinion that the name of respondent No. 4 be placed at serial No. 2, has not been challenged even by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 4. His stand before us, however, was that the recommendation made by two members of the Selection Committee also constituted recommendation of the Selection Committee and hence the Executive Council could consider the name. Now it was for the Chancellor to conclude whether recommendation made by only two out of the five members of the Selection Committee, could constitute the recommendation of the Selection Committee. A conclusion on this point would have had a far reaching effect on the ultimate and final decision of the Chancellor. 33. Since the Chancellor passed the impugned order without apply his mind to any of the questions raised, it must be held to be involid. We are supported in taking this view by a decision of this Court in Special Appeal No. 269 of 1970. Kunwar Vishnu Autar v. The Chancellor Rohilkhand and Agra University and others, decided on 31st August, 1976. In that case the Committee of management of an affiliated college terminated the services of a teacher. The Vice-Chancellor first approved the termination but later on the representation of the teacher, reviewed his earlier order and refused the approval without giving any opportunity to the management. Against that order the management filed a representation before the Chancellor under Section 68 of the State Universities Act. The Chancellor quashed the decision of the Vice Chancellor and directed him to decide the matter afresh. The Management challenged the order of the Vice-Chancellor on the grounds . (1) that there was no power in the Vice-Chancellor to review his order of approval and (ii) that even if there was such power there was no good ground for review. The Chancellor quashed the decision of the Vice Chancellor and directed him to decide the matter afresh. The Management challenged the order of the Vice-Chancellor on the grounds . (1) that there was no power in the Vice-Chancellor to review his order of approval and (ii) that even if there was such power there was no good ground for review. But the Chancellor did not consider any of these questions while disposing of the representation, it was held by this court , "These questions have not been considered by the Chancellor at all. In the proceedings before the Chancellor the legality or otherwise of the order of termination following the grant of approval did not arise for consideration nor was the Chancellor called upon to decide whether the order of approval dated August 22, 1974 was valid or not as it had already been set aside by the Vice-Chancellor. The only question which he was called upon to decide was whether the Vice-chancellor had any power to review the order of approval and if he had whether any good ground had been made out for review." 34. With the above observations this Court set aside, the order of the Chancellor and issued a direction for the presentation being decided afresh. 35. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 then urged that the petitioner has no locus standi to file this petition. It was urged that the mere fact that the petitioner's name had been recommended by the Selection Committee, did not vest any right in him and, hence, it was not open to him to file this writ petition. We regret our inability to accept this argument. Allahabad University has been created by the Allahabad University Act. The Executive Council and the Chancellor are creators of the Statute and have to act thereunder.. According to the petitioner the Selection Committee had recommended his name alone and yet the Executive Council and the Chancellor appointed respondent No. 4, who was never recommended. According to the petitioner, this act of the Executive Council and the Chancellor is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. If this allegation of the petitioner is found to be correct, we see no reason why he should not have a locus standi to file this writ petition. The contention raise, therefore, is rejected as devoid of substance. 36. If this allegation of the petitioner is found to be correct, we see no reason why he should not have a locus standi to file this writ petition. The contention raise, therefore, is rejected as devoid of substance. 36. Yet another arguments raised by the learned counsel for respondent No. 4 was that the petitioner had an alternative remedy under Section 68 of the State University Act and; consequently., this petition is not maintainable. We are once again unable to agree. 37. The relevant part Section 68 reads as follows : - "If any question arises whether any person has been duly selected 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 or Regulation, not being a Statute or Ordinance made or approved by the State Government or by the Chancellor) is in conformity with this Act or the Statutes or Ordinance made thereunder, the matter shall be referred to the Chancellor and the decision of the Chancellor thereon shall be final." Provided that no reference under the section shall be made : - (a) more than three months after the date when the question could have been raised for the first time ; (b) by any person other than an authority or officer of the University or a person aggrieved." 38. In the instant case there was conflict between the Selection Committee and the Executive Council. Special provision has been made by the Statute for resolving such a conflict be enacting Section 31. Section 68 could not have, therefore, any application in this case. That apart, the Chancellor has already taken a decision in the matter, even though on a reference made under Section 21 (8) of the Save University Act. The petitioner had to necessarily challenge the correctness of that decision and this could not be done by asking for a reference under Section 68. It is, however, contained in the rejoinder affidavit of the petitioner that on 18-2-1980 he sent a representation under Section 68 of the State University Act which was not decided by the Chancellor. This is borne out to be true on a perusal of the record of the Chancellor's Secretariat. It is, however, contained in the rejoinder affidavit of the petitioner that on 18-2-1980 he sent a representation under Section 68 of the State University Act which was not decided by the Chancellor. This is borne out to be true on a perusal of the record of the Chancellor's Secretariat. The contention raised by the learned counsel for respondent No. 4, is, therefore, wholly devoid of substance and cannot De accepted for any moment. 39. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 then referred us to an affidavit filed by Sri R. D. Sonkar, as who was then Secretary to the Chancellor (respondent No. 1). The only material averment contained in this affidavit is that Shri G.D, Tapase (respondent No. 1) passed the impugned order after examining the record carefully and after discussing the matter with Sri Sonkar. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that Sri Sonkar is not a party in the writ petition and Sri G.D. lapse (respondent No. 1) has not chosen to contest the writ petition and, hence, the affidavit filed by Sri Sonkar, for which no direction was made by this, court should not be taken into account. It appears that Sri Sonkar filed the aforesaid affidavit with a view to explain the position of Sri G.D. Tapase even though the latter decided not to contest the writ petition. The aforesaid averment contained in the affidavit of Sri Sonkar, however, does not improve the situation, for, we do not know what matters were taken into account by the respondent No. 1 and what matters were discussed by him with Sri Sonkar before passing the impugned order. In view of the seriousness of the questions raised, it was necessary for the respondent No. 1 to examine those questions and then express his opinion thereon while passing the order. As already stated earlier it does not appear from the order passed by him, that he at all applied his mind to any of the questions raised. 40. Thus, having given our careful thought to the contentions raised on either side we find that the order of the Chancellor dated 26th February, 1980. deciding the reference and appointing the respondent No. 4 as Professor of Ancient History, Culture and Archaeology in the University of Allahabad, having been passed without application of mind to the various questions that had been raised, is invalid and cannot be maintained. deciding the reference and appointing the respondent No. 4 as Professor of Ancient History, Culture and Archaeology in the University of Allahabad, having been passed without application of mind to the various questions that had been raised, is invalid and cannot be maintained. The writ petitioner is therefore allowed and the order quashed. Let a direction be issued to the Chancellor to decide the reference afresh in accordance with law. No order is made as to costs. 41. Since the Chancellor while deciding the reference may like to examine the minutes of the meeting of Executive Council dated 13th January, 1980 or might order an enquiry into the alleged interpolation, we have got those minutes and the connected short-hand note-book sealed so that they may remain available to the Chancellor in the existing shape. The Registrar shall send the sealed packet containing the aforesaid to the Registrar of the University with the direction that, till the reference is disposed of by the Chancellor, it will not be opened except by or under the order of the Chancellor.