ORDER B.D. Agrawal, J. - These are connected petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2. Vacancy arose against two posts of Professor in Chemistry in the University of Allahabad. The posts were advertised. Dr. B.B.L. Saxena, Dr. Krishna Bahadur, Dr. M.P. Singh, Dr. P.C. Gupta were among the candidates considered for appointment to these posts by the Selection Committee which met on 29th Oct., 1981. The recommendation made by the Selection Committee for the two posts separately in' the order of preference was :- Post. No. 1 : - 1. Dr. B. B. L. Saxena. 2. Dr. M. P. Singh. 3. Dr. P. C. Gupta. Post No. 2 : - 1. Dr. M. P. Singh. 2. P. C. Gupta. 3. On 4th Nov. 1981 the Executive Council accepted the recommendation of the Selection Committee in relation to post No. 1 and decided to appoint Dr. B.B.L. Saxena against that post. In relation to Post No. 2 the Executive Council by majority disagreed with the recommendation of the Selection Committee for reasons recorded by it and decided to refer the matter to the Chancellor under Si 31 (8) (a) of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 with the request that the recommendation of the Selection Committee relating to Post No. 2 be quashed and fresh advertisement directed. Dr. M. P. Singh made representation to the Chancellor directly under S. 68 of the Act on 10th Jan. 1982 for the reference made by the Executive Council being set aside followed by a supplementary representation D/- 15-2-1982. A representation under S. 68 was also made by Dr. P. C. Gupta. These were considered together by the Chancellor who accepted the reference made by the Executive Council under S. 31 (8) (a) under his order dated Aug. 28, 1982. It was directed that post No. 2 be advertised afresh and selection thereto made in accordance with law. 4. Aggrieved Dr. M.P. Singh has filed the Writ Petition No. 10342 of 1982 and the other Writ Petition No. 12066 of 1982 has been filed by Dr. P. C. Gupta. Both were heard together with the consent of the parties' learned counsel. 5. Sri V.B. Singh, learned counsel for Dr. 4. Aggrieved Dr. M.P. Singh has filed the Writ Petition No. 10342 of 1982 and the other Writ Petition No. 12066 of 1982 has been filed by Dr. P. C. Gupta. Both were heard together with the consent of the parties' learned counsel. 5. Sri V.B. Singh, learned counsel for Dr. M.P. Singh, petitioner, raised the following contentions in support of his petition (1) The Executive Council could not dissent from the recommendation of the Selection Committee since it is not said that the Selection Committee was not duly constituted or that the petitioner did not had the prescribed minimum qualification; (2) The Chancellor could not disregard the recommendation of the Selection Committee except under S. 68 of the Act on basis that this was not in conformity with the Act, the Statutes `or the Ordinances; (3) The Executive Council could not bifurcate in the sense of the accepting the recommendation for post No.1 and disagreeing with regard to post No. 2; (4) The decision arrived at by the Executive Council is arbitrary and not based on relevant considerations; (5) The Chancellor did not give reasons for not accepting the recommendation of the Selection Committee. 6. Before proceeding to consider these contentions, it would be helpful to advert to relevant provisions of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973. The Governor is the Chancellor of the University. He is by virtue of his office the Head of the University and the President of the Court (S. 10 (i)). The Executive Council, the Selection Committee for the appointment of teachers of the University are among the authorities of the University - S. 19. The Executive Council, as provided in S. 21 (1) is the principal executive body of the University and has the power, inter alia, to appoint teachers of the University - vide Cl. (vii). In accordance with S. 31 (1) the teachers of the University shall be appointed by the Executive Council on the recommendation of a Selection Committee. In the case of appointment of a Professor, the Selection Committee consists of the Vice-Chancellor (who is the Chairman thereof), the Head of the Department concerned and three experts nominated by the Chancellor as provided in S. 31 (4) (a). Sub-sec. (7-A) says that it shall be open to the Selection Committee to recommend one or more but not more than three names for each post." Sub-sec. Sub-sec. (7-A) says that it shall be open to the Selection Committee to recommend one or more but not more than three names for each post." Sub-sec. (8) (a) of S. 31 is material. It reads :- "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, and his decision shall be final." 7. Section 68 also referred to by the petitioner's learned counsel provides "If any question arises 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 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 the Ordinances 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 this 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; Provided further that the Chancellor may in exceptional circumstances. (a) act suo Motu or entertain a reference after the expiry of the period mentioned in the preceding proviso, (b) where the matter referred relates to a dispute about the election, and the eligibility of the person so elected is in doubt, pass such orders of stay, as he thinks just and expedient, (c) review any decision made by him earlier under the section." 8. Indisputedly, the vacancy separately advertised by the University of Allahabad in this case was to fill in two posts of Professor in Chemistry on substantive basis. Indisputedly, the vacancy separately advertised by the University of Allahabad in this case was to fill in two posts of Professor in Chemistry on substantive basis. The -Selection Committee made its recommendation on 29th Oct., 1981 and draw two separate panels which have been noted above. The panel in relation to post No. 1 consisted of three persons in order of preference, the other panel consisted of two persons. Dr. M.P. Singh, petitioner, found place as No. 2 in the first panel, and at No. 1 in the other panel. Statute 11.06 of the First Statutes (1976) of this University thus signifies the arrangement of panels:- "11.06 (a) If the Selection Committee recommends more than one candidate for appointment it may in its discretion arrange their names in or order of preference. Where the Committee decides to arrange the names in order of preference, it shall be deemed to have signified that in the event of the first being not available, the second may be appointed, and in the event of the second also being not available, the third may be appointed, and so on. (b) The Selection Committee may recommend that no suitable candidate for appointment is available. In such a case, the post shall be re-advertised." 9. In the writ petition filed by Dr. M. P. Singh, the validity of the constitution of the Selection Committee is not in dispute, though this has been raised in issue in the other writ petition filed by Dr. P. C. Gupta and will be dealt with later. On Nov. 4, 1981, the Executive Council accepted the recommendation for post No. 1 and decided to give appointment to Dr. B. B. L. Saxena. In regard to post No. 2 however, the Executive Council disagreed by the.majority of 8:2 (with 5 abstentions) and resolved to make reference to the Chancellor under S. 31 (8) (a) specifying the reasons for the disagreement as under "With regard to the panel recommended by the Selection Committee for the second post of professor, there was difference of opinion as to whether the recommendation be accepted or the matter referred to the Chancellor. Accordingly votes were taken. Whereas five members remained neutral, two voted for acceptance of the recommendation and eight votes for referring the matter to the Chancellor as they felt that the Selection Committee has seriously erred by ignoring the academic attainments and seniority of Dr. Accordingly votes were taken. Whereas five members remained neutral, two voted for acceptance of the recommendation and eight votes for referring the matter to the Chancellor as they felt that the Selection Committee has seriously erred by ignoring the academic attainments and seniority of Dr. Krishna Bahadur, D. Phil, D. Sc. D. I. C. (London). They were of the opinion that Dr. Krishna Bahadur (i) has produced high quality research and published 183 research papers of which more than 100 are in stand and foreign journals as against 57 papers by the candidates recommended, (ii) has supervised 37 D. Phil, and 3 D. Sc. candidates against 27 D. Phil and no D. Sc. candidate by the candidate recommended, (iii) has worked in U. K. and U. S. A. as exchange scientist as against no foreign visit by the candidate recommended, and (iv) he is the next senior most Reader in the Department being 5 years senior to the candidate recommended. In view of the above, the Council decided by a majority vote that the matter be referred to the Chancellor under sub-sec. (8) (a) of S. 31 of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973. with a request to quash the recommendation of the Selection Committee for the second post of professor of Chemistry and order for fresh advertisement." 10. The Executive Council, thereafter, made a change on 27th Jan., 1982, to the extent only that regarding the recommendation of the Selection Committee for post No. 1 it was resolved to approve only for the first name (Dr. Saxena) of the panel vide Annexure 2 (b) of the Writ Petition. The reference to the Chancellor was made under S. 31 (8) (a) which was considered along with the petitioners' representations under S. 68 and the decision D/- 28th Aug., 1982 of the Chancellor in so far as relevant stated- "The Executive Council considered the said recommendations on Nov. 4. 1981 and resolved to appoint Dr. B. B. L. Saxena against post No. 1. Hence there was no disagreement with regard to this post. Regarding the second post, the Executive Council did not agree with the recommendations and resolved to refer the matter to the Chancellor. The Executive Council was of the view, that the Selection Committee had seriously erred by ignoring the academic attainments and seniority of Dr. Krishna Bahadur. The comparative qualifications of Dr. Krishna Bahadur and Dr. Regarding the second post, the Executive Council did not agree with the recommendations and resolved to refer the matter to the Chancellor. The Executive Council was of the view, that the Selection Committee had seriously erred by ignoring the academic attainments and seniority of Dr. Krishna Bahadur. The comparative qualifications of Dr. Krishna Bahadur and Dr. M. P. Singh recommended at first preference for post No. 2 may be reproduced below for convenience : - Dr. Krishna Bahadur. H. S. II Div. Inter II Div. B. Sc. II Div. M. Sc. (Chem) IInd Div. D. Phil D. Sc. D. T. C. (London) Teaching Experience. Lecturer since 1950. Dr. M. P. Singh. H. S. IInd Div. Inter IInd Div. B. Sc. IInd Div. M. Sc (Chem) IInd Div. D. Phil D. Sc. Teaching Experience Lecturer since 1955 I have also considered the qualifications of other candidates recommended and find that Dr. Krishna Bahadur has greater experience of teaching and has more publications of standing. In view of these, I am in agreement with the view expressed by the Executive Council that it was wrong on the part of the Selection Committee not to have recommended Dr. Krishna Bahadur at all. In any case, the Selection Committee ought to have given specific reasons and justifications for excluding a senior, more experienced and highly qualified Reader of the University over others. I, therefore, allow the reference made by the Executive Council, and direct that only the second post of Professor be advertised afresh and selection and appointment thereto may be made in accordance with law. No separate orders need be passed on individual representations of Dr. M. P. Singh, Dr. Krishna Bahadur and Dr. P. C. Working as Reader for the last 11 years. Published 183 scientific papers. in foreign and Indian Journals. Produced 35 D. Phil. and 3 D. SC Gupta who may apprised of the above decision." 11. Taking up now the contentions of the petitioners learned counsel seriatim. it was urged with regard to (1) that the Executive Council did not have authority to make reference to the Chancellor. The submission made is that the Executive Council is not competent to sit in judgment over the recommendation on merits and that this is the exclusive domain of the Selection Committee which includes three experts who are in the best position to make the assessment. The submission made is that the Executive Council is not competent to sit in judgment over the recommendation on merits and that this is the exclusive domain of the Selection Committee which includes three experts who are in the best position to make the assessment. There was reference made also by the learned counsel to the high degree of weight that is ordinarily attached by courts to expert opinion in academic matters. In University of Mysore v. Govinda Rao, AIR 1965 SC 491 at p. 496, the Supreme Court observed that Boards of appointments were nominated by the Universities and when recommendations made by them are challenged before Courts, `normally the courts should be slow to interfere with the opinions expressed by the experts'. The petitioners' counsel referred also to the observation in State of Bihar v. Dr. Aziz Kumar Mukherjee, (1975) 3 SCC 602. at p. 610 : AIR 1975 SC 192 at p. 196 that unless serious circumstances militating against veracity of the certificates given by surgeons to the respondent that he had taken part in teaching work as Registrar existed, fair minded administrators may, after expert consultation, rely on them. This on principle is not disputed but in its application under the scheme of the Act the statutory provisions contained in S. 31 (8) (a) of the Act cannot be eroded. The power to give appointment is vested in the principal executive body of the University, the Selection Committee only recommends, Working as Reader for the last 8 years. Published 57 research papers. Produced 27 D. Phils. there can be no appointment made of a teacher without seeking recommendation of the Selection Committee, but the decision to give appointment is of the Executive Council. The recommendation does carry weight and may not be lightly brushed aside, but the Act does not make it conclusive. S. 31 (8) (a) does envisage a situation where the Executive Council does not agree, with the recommendation made by the Selection Committee." This, to my mind, clearly covers the case where the Executive Council does not ditto the assessment of the Selection Committee with regard to relative merits of the individual candidates. S. 31 (8) (a) does envisage a situation where the Executive Council does not agree, with the recommendation made by the Selection Committee." This, to my mind, clearly covers the case where the Executive Council does not ditto the assessment of the Selection Committee with regard to relative merits of the individual candidates. The power conferred on the Executive Council to disagree is hedged in with valuable safeguards namely, that firstly, the Executive Council must record reasons for such disagreement and, secondly, the matter has to be referred to the Chancellor, who is made the final arbitrator in this respect. In the words of Prof. Street: Justice in the Welfare State 2nd Ed. page 109 (1975). "..nothing improves the quality of decision making so much as having to make a finding of facts and a statement of reasons." The power conferred on the Executive Council is, therefore, neither arbitrary nor does this interpretation contain the risk of the Executive Council imposing their decision on extraneous considerations as apprehended by the learned counsel. The argument that the Executive Council might disagree only where the Selection Committee is not duly constituted or the recommended candidate does not possess the minimum qualification is purely wishful and conjectural. No such artificial line of demarcation can be drawn in S. 31 (8) (a) which is unambiguous in its terms and must be given effect to according to the ordinary and natural meaning of the language employed. The Legislature has in its wisdom thought it appropriate to incorporate this provision in the Act, and I am unable to agree that despite this, the Court may on the strength of general weight normally attached to expert opinions, in academic bodies hold that the Executive Council is not within its powers in disagreeing with the recommendation of the Selection Committee on the relative merits of the candidates. 12. In Mrs. Priti Prabha Goel v. Dr. C.P. Singh, 1969 Lab IC 913 (Raj) relied for this petitioner appointment was giver to Dr. C. P. Singh by the Vice-Chancellor purporting to do so under S. 2 (5) of the Jodhpur University Act. 1962.That provision could be invoked only where immediate action was required. It was found that no emergency existed. The Court held that the appointment had, if any, to be made in accordance with Statutes 5 (2)/19 (4) and it was mandatory to seek recommendations of the Selection committee. 1962.That provision could be invoked only where immediate action was required. It was found that no emergency existed. The Court held that the appointment had, if any, to be made in accordance with Statutes 5 (2)/19 (4) and it was mandatory to seek recommendations of the Selection committee. No recommendation was sought of the Selection Committee in that case. There was no question arising in that case, therefore, of the scope of powers of the appointing authority under Statute 19 (4) in the event of disagreement with the recommendation of the Selection Committee, nor was such question dealt with. There was no denial in the case before us that the Executive Council could not act without seeking recommendation of the Selection Committee under S. 31 (1) but where disagreement arises the procedure to be followed is as laid in S. 31 (8). Contention No. 2 13. This was dealt with but only in part in the discussion made above. The main thrust of the arguments for the petitioner is that the Chancellor does not have power to disregard recommendation of the Selection Committee, except where it is not in conformity with the Act, the Statutes or Ordinances as contemplated in S. 68. The contention is fallacious in my view. S. 31 (8) (a) and S. 68 operate in distinct facts, situations as is manifest from the following analysis:- (i) the reference under S. 31 (8) (a) can be made only by the Executive Council, the Chancellor can be moved under S. 68 not necessarily at the instance of the Executive Council: (ii) to invoke the jurisdiction of the Chancellor under S. 31 (8) (a) (a) there has to be the recommendation of the Selection Committee: (b) the disagreement of the Executive Council; (c) the statement of reasons by the Executive Council for disagreement; They constitute conditions precedent: none of these needs exist for purposes of; (iii)S. 68 .is attracted, in so far as relevant, if any question arises whether any decision of any authority is in conformity with this Act or the Statutes or the Ordinances but in making the reference under S. 31 (8) (a) the Executive Council does not have to raise this issue. (iv) S. 31 (8) (a) is specific, in its application to a contingency arising as stated therein, while S. 68 is general. 14. (iv) S. 31 (8) (a) is specific, in its application to a contingency arising as stated therein, while S. 68 is general. 14. The dichotomy between these provisions is, therefore, plain and irrefutable and there is no disharmony involved. The Executive Council does not say that in recommending Dr. M. P. Singh in preference to Dr. Krishna Bahadur respondent, the Selection Committee committed breach of any provisions of the Act, the Statutes or the Ordinances. It is true that Selection Committee acted within its jurisdiction but the Executive Council is nonetheless given the right to dissent from the value assessment (sic) upon merit. It can appeal to the Chancellor, along with its reasons for the disagreement and there is finality attached to the decision of the Chancellor. Clearly, since the Chancellor has before him the view of the recommending body and the dissent of the appointing authority, he is in position to take decision that `would bind all concerned. The submission that the recommendation of the Selection Committee is so sacrosanct that this may not be touched even by the Chancellor despite his conviction that the assessment is faulty is unsupported either by the text of the Statute or the spirit thereof. The Chancellor is at the apex of the body corporate that is, the University. He is assumed to be the expert of experts and the law reposes unmixed confidence' in his decision which of course remains subject to the supervisory writ jurisdiction of the Court. In the legitimate exercise of his jurisdiction the Chancellor may very well decline to accept the recommendation of the Selection Committee. 15. The authorities which Sri V. B. Singh, the learned counsel cited do not serve to support his submissions. In Dr. Ramsingh v. University of Sagar, 1974 Lab IC 20 (Madh Pra) S. 47-A of the University of Sagar Act, 1946 (as amended) came up for consideration. This states that the Executive Council could not appoint any person to any teaching post except on the recommendation of a Committee constituted under that section. Interpreting this provision the High Court took the view that the scheme of S. 47-A and the object behind it clearly showed that the Executive Council could not refuse to accept the recommendation of the Committee simply on the ground that the person recommended was not suitable or that a person rejected should have been recommended. Interpreting this provision the High Court took the view that the scheme of S. 47-A and the object behind it clearly showed that the Executive Council could not refuse to accept the recommendation of the Committee simply on the ground that the person recommended was not suitable or that a person rejected should have been recommended. The cardinal fact of distinction that goes to the root of the matter is that it is not shown that there was any provision in that Act analogous to S. 31 (8) (a) of our Act providing for disagreement and the resolution thereof by the Chancellor nor did, any such provision at all came up for interpretation or application in that case. 16. In Dr. D.D. Tewari v. Chancellor, S.S. Vishwavidyalaya, Varanasi, 1978 (4) All LR 409 : 1973 All L3 844 the Selection Committee made its recommendation for appointment. This was placed before the Executive Council which passed a resolution. The Bench observes at page 412, "On a reading of the said resolution it is clear that the Executive Council did not record any disagreement with the recommendations made by the Selection Committee. In the resolution there are no reasons-given for any disagreement." It was held that in the absence of these two essential pre-requisites the reference to the Chancellor purporting to be under S. 31(8)(a) was incompetent and, therefore, the Chancellor acquired no jurisdiction to disapprove. This, therefore, is not an authority for the proposition that even if reference under S. 31(8) is competent, Chancellor cannot interfere. 17. Upon a proper reference under S. 31(8)(a) the function of the Chancellor is akin to that of an Arbitrator. His power to take decision is unqualified in the sense that for acts within the scope of his powers in discarding the recommendation of the Selection Committee and agreeing with the Executive Council. In Dr. U.N. Roy v. H.E. Sri G.D. Tapase, 1981 U.P. L.B.E.C. 309 (All) also cited for the petitioner the Division Bench observed at p. 319. "In the instant case there was conflict between the Selection Committee and the Executive Counsel. Special provision has been made by the Statute for resolving such a conflict by enacting S. 31. S. 68 could not have therefore, any application in this case. 18. Evidently, this supports the respondent, rather than the petitioner. The case of Dr. "In the instant case there was conflict between the Selection Committee and the Executive Counsel. Special provision has been made by the Statute for resolving such a conflict by enacting S. 31. S. 68 could not have therefore, any application in this case. 18. Evidently, this supports the respondent, rather than the petitioner. The case of Dr. D. Pandey v. The Chancellor, Allahabad University, 1982 U.P. LBEC 669 : 1983 All LJ 152 relied then for the petitioner stands on different footing. In its recommendation, the Selection Committee placed the petitioner at Sl. No. 1 while the respondent No. 4 was placed at Sl. No. 2. These recommendations were approved by the Executive Council pursuant to which the petitioner was given appointment. The respondent No. 2 represented to the Chancellor under S. 68. The Chancellor set aside the petitioner's order on ground that he did , not possess requisite minimum qualification and the appointment was made in violation of statute 11.02. Upon these facts dealing with powers under S. 68, brother Mithal J. held. that any recommendation made by the Selection Committee and/or any decision taken by the Executive Council in respect thereof would amount to decision of an authority or officer of the University. Thus a decision of any of those authorities can be questioned before the Chancellor. This, however, has its own limitations and unless there was any lack of conformity, with any provision of the Act etc. only then the Chancellor would be entitled to interfere with the order of the Executive Council. This thus was not at all a case under S. 31(8) or of reference thereunder. The Executive Council had agreed with the Selection Committee. No question arose therein of contrast between the scope of powers of the Chancellor under S. 31(8) on the one hand and S. 68 on the other. Since both these provisions operate independently without giving rise to any anomaly to import into S. 31(8) the ingredients of S. 68 is, in my opinion. altogether unwarranted. Contention No. 3 : 19. It was argued then that the Executive Council could either accept the recommendation of the Selection Committee in toto for both the posts or reject the same but it could not reject the recommendation regarding the post No. 2 and accept that relating to post No. 1, and, further that there was incongruity inasmuch as the petitioner (Dr. It was argued then that the Executive Council could either accept the recommendation of the Selection Committee in toto for both the posts or reject the same but it could not reject the recommendation regarding the post No. 2 and accept that relating to post No. 1, and, further that there was incongruity inasmuch as the petitioner (Dr. M. P. Singh) is at SI. No. 2 for post No.1 which was accepted while the recommendations of his candidature for the other post was discarded by the Executive Council. Counsel went on to say that both should have been treated as one panel and since the selection was by one Committee, the Executive Council could not bifurcate. This whole argument is devoid of substance. 20. Section 31(7-A) empowers the Selection Committee to recommend one or more but not more than two names for `each' post. In accordance with Statute 11.06(a) quoted above, the Selection Committee could, as it did, in its discretion arrange their names in order of preference. The Executive Council is empowered under S. 31(8)(a) to agree with the recommendation as a whole or in part only. Nothing contained in these provisions circumscribes the powers of the Executive Council so as to prevent it from disagreeing with respect to recommendation for one out of two posts. These were two distinct panels formulated by the Selection Committee. 21. Nor was there incongruity in the Executive Council not accepting the recommendation for post No. 2. The decision dated 4-11-1981 reflects that it accepted the petitioner (Dr. Singh) has the second best for the post No. 1, meaning thereby that only in the event of Dr. Saxena being not available he could be taken in that post (see Statute 11.06(.a)) but it was not prepared to accord top position to Dr. Singh for the other post, there was no inconsistency in this decision. Furthermore, on 27-1-1982, the Executive Council reviewed the decision dated 4-11-1981 and declined to accept the petitioner even as the second best for post No. 1. This too was within the statutory powers of the Executive Council and the decision was unanimous. Dr. Saxena was available and given appointment too for post No. 1. For this reason as well the petitioner does not stand to gain relating to post No. 1. Contentions Nos. 4 and 5: 22. These may be dealt with together. This too was within the statutory powers of the Executive Council and the decision was unanimous. Dr. Saxena was available and given appointment too for post No. 1. For this reason as well the petitioner does not stand to gain relating to post No. 1. Contentions Nos. 4 and 5: 22. These may be dealt with together. The contention for the petitioner that the Executive Council did not assign reasons for disagreement with the Selection Committee and that the Chancellor though acting in quasi-judicial capacity did not record reasons can be easily discarded on a bare perusal of the resolutions of the Executive Council dated 4-11-1981/27-1-1982 and the order of the Chancellor dated 28-8-1982 quoted above. 23. It was argued also that the Executive Council and the Chancellor were guided merely by the numerical strength of the papers published by the respondent, Dr. Krishna Bahadur (183) as against (57) to the petitioner's credit and the relative seniority of Dr. Krishna Bahadur his being the next senior most Reader in the department and 5 years senior to the petitioner. This does not correctly represent the reasons that have actually been recorded. The guiding consideration has been `the academic attainments and seniority of Dr. Krishna Bahadur'. The qualitative aspect concerning the high quality research put in by him has been very well borne in mind. The decision is based on relevant criteria. I am not impressed with the argument advanced before me that Dr. S. K. Dey published more papers than 183, and, therefore, he should have been selected rather than the respondent. Instead of helping the petitioner, it serves to dislodge the contention made in the same breath that mere numerical strength of the papers published was adopted as the relevant factor. 24. An attempt though feeble was also made by the petitioners' counsel to impress that the Court may on its assessment hold the petitioner as better qualified. Suffice it may to say to this that it is not for us to pronounce on it. `Courts cannot and do not appoint petitioners to posts they claim but lay down the legal criteria and give the correct directions, the Executive being the organ of the State to exercise the power, to appoint but in conformity with the legal directions' see State of Bihar v. Dr. Asis Kumar Mukherjee, 1975 (3) SCC 602 : AIR 1975 SC 192 (supra). 25. Asis Kumar Mukherjee, 1975 (3) SCC 602 : AIR 1975 SC 192 (supra). 25. This leads me to the other writ petition of Dr. P. C. Gupta. The petitioner in this case was placed at Sl. No. 3 for the post No. 1 and at Sl. 2 for post No. 2 by the Selection Committee. With regard to post No. 2 he can have no subsisting grievance. The reason is that that part has been set aside by the Chancellor on 28-8-1982, and selection is to be made afresh. It has been found above, that the Executive Council acted within the scope of its powers under the Act in making the reference under S. 31(8)(a) and the Chancellor rightly rejected the representation of Dr. M. P. Singh under S. 68 against the same. 26. The dispute raised by Dr. P. C. Gupta, however, survives for post No. 1. His grievance in this behalf is that:- (i) the Selection Committee was not duly constituted; (ii) The precis relating to the academic attainments of the petitioner placed before the members of the Selection Committee was not fairly drawn and the Vice- Chancellor avoided disclosing material data the interview to the other members; (iii) The Chancellor has not assigned reasons for rejecting this petitioner's representation tinder S. 68 of the Act. 27. Sri B. D. Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the University, raised preliminary objection that a representation under S. 68 could not lie against the recommendation of the Selection Committee dated 29-10-1981 regarding post No. 1 because, it was argued, this was not a `decision' within the meaning of this section. The objection cannot be sustained for two reasons. Firstly, the Selection Committee is an authority of the University as defined in S. 19. The function assigned to this authority is only that of making its recommendation as is clear from S. 31(1)(4). S. 68 is inclusive of decision of any authority not excluding the Selection Committee. In the entire context the recommendation of the Selection Committee would be nothing else than its decision for purposes of S. 68. In the case of Dr. D.C. Pandey, 1982 U.P.L.B.E.C. 669 : 1983 All LJ 152 (supra) also it was observed that this is a decision. Secondly, in regard to post No. 1, the recommendation of the Selection Committee was accepted by the Executive Council, in regard at least to Dr. In the case of Dr. D.C. Pandey, 1982 U.P.L.B.E.C. 669 : 1983 All LJ 152 (supra) also it was observed that this is a decision. Secondly, in regard to post No. 1, the recommendation of the Selection Committee was accepted by the Executive Council, in regard at least to Dr. Saxena placed at the top who was also appointed. It is not disputed that this in any case constitutes decision of the Executive Council. Dr. Gupta's representation under S. 68 was directed against this decision as well. 28. Upon merit, there is no denial that in deciding a representation under S. 68, the Chancellor acts in quasi-judicial capacity. It is incumbent upon him to make a speaking order. From the order dated 28-8-82, it would be noticed that the Chancellor has discussed reasons for accepting the reference under S. 31(8)(a) made by the Executive Council which also negatived the representation of Dr. M. P. Singh. But in so far as the representation of Dr. Gupta relating to post No. 1 is concerned all that was said was that the Executive Council accepted the recommendation. This does not answer the points of objection canvassed by this petitioner, assailing the appointment given to Dr. Saxena against the post No. 1. This aspect seems to have escaped notice in the Chancellor's order. 29. Sri K. S. Sinha, learned counsel, arguing for this petitioner urged that in view of S. 31(5)(d) the experts for the Selection Committee could not be changed except upon any person whose name appears higher in the panel of experts nominated by the Chancellor not being available for a meeting of the Selection Committee. The plea raised is that three experts specified in para 3 of the writ petition were allocated for the meeting of the Selection Committee scheduled to take place on 13-5-1981. This meeting was postponed to 29-10-1981. These experts remained available but a different set was assigned by the Vice Chancellor without compliance to S. 31(5)(d). The factual averments have not been rebutted by counter-affidavit. Sri Agarwal, appearing for the University referred, however, to S. 66(a) and submitted that an act or proceeding of any authority is not invalid merely by reason of `any vacancy or defect in the constitution thereof. Reliance was also placed upon observations in Rajendra v. Civil Judge. The factual averments have not been rebutted by counter-affidavit. Sri Agarwal, appearing for the University referred, however, to S. 66(a) and submitted that an act or proceeding of any authority is not invalid merely by reason of `any vacancy or defect in the constitution thereof. Reliance was also placed upon observations in Rajendra v. Civil Judge. Bulandshahr, (1981) U.P.L.B.E.C. 214 (DB) at p. 224 to the effect that there being no objection raised in this score by the petitioner before the Selection Committee, he cannot now take up to same, as held by the Supreme Court in Dr. G. Sarna v. Lucknow University, AIR 1976 SC 2428 . This ,contention for the University is not without force but I refrain to delve into this further because it is up to the Chancellor to consider these objections and make suitable order accompanied with reasons therefor. The submission No. (ii) for this petitioner, namely, that the precis circulated to the members of the Selection Committee was not fairly drawn and that he has been prejudiced by the manner in which interview was conducted would also require Chancellor's consideration. No counter- affidavit has been filed before the Court in that respect also. 30. In the result, the Writ Petition No. 10342 of 1982 fails and is dismissed. The Writ Petition No. 12066 of 1982 is allowed in part. The order of the Chancellor dated 28-8-82 rejecting the representation of Dr. P. C. Gupta under S. 68 of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 with respect to the selection and appointment to post No.I for the Professor in the Department of Chemistry is set aside. The Chancellor is directed to re-decide the same upon merit according to law. There will be no order as to costs.