JUDGMENT K.N. Singh, J. - By means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner seeks relief for issue of writ of certiorari quashing the resolution of the Executive Council of the Banaras Hindu University dated 23/24 Feb. 1985 directing the Selection Committee to hold fresh selection for the post of Lecturers in the Faculty of Management Studies. 2. The Banaras Hindu University issued advertisement inviting applications for appointment to the post of Lecturers in the Faculty of Management Studies. The petitioners as well as many others applied for the same. The Selection Committee constituted in accordance with the provisions of the Banaras Hindu University Act, 1915 and the Statutes framed thereunder interviewed candidates on 30th Jan. 1985 and it made its recommendations to the Executive Council for making appointments. Before the recommendations of the Selection Committee could be considered by the Executive Council, Dr. Deepak Sharma who had applied for the post of Lecturer but who had not been called for interview. made a representation to the Executive Council against the recommendations of the Selection Committee on the ground that he was eligible for appointment to the post but the Selection Committee wrongly refused to call him for interview. The Executive Council considered the representation of Dr. Deepak Sharma at its meeting held on 23/24 Feb. 1985, it found merit in the representation of Dr. Deepak Sharma as in its opinion, he fulfilled the eligibility criteria for being considered for appointment to the post of Lecturer. It, therefore, resolved that interview for the post of Lecturers be held afresh. In this view the Executive Council did not make appointment instead it directed the Selection Committee to hold fresh interview and selection. In pursuance to the resolution of the Executive Council, the Selection Committee issued fresh interview letter directing the petitioner to appear for interview again on 27-3-1985 at 8.30 A.M. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this petition challenging the resolution of the Executive Council as well as the consequential order issued by the Selection Committee by its letter dated 16-3-1985. 3. Counter-affidavit as well as rejoinder affidavit have been exchanged by the parties and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, we are disposing of this petition finally at the admission stage. 4. 3. Counter-affidavit as well as rejoinder affidavit have been exchanged by the parties and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, we are disposing of this petition finally at the admission stage. 4. Selection and appointment of teachers in the Banaras Hindu University is regulated by provisions of the Banaras Hindu University Act (Act No. XVI of 1915) and Statutes framed thereunder. Section 10(2) of the Banaras Hindu University Act (hereinafter referred to as Act) lays down that subject to the provisions of the Act, the Executive Council shall exercise such powers and perform such other duties as may be conferred or imposed on it by the Statutes or the Ordinances. Statute 15 framed under Act, confers power on the Executive Council to appoint Professors, Readers, Lecturers and other members of the teaching staff on the recommendation of the Selection Committee constituted for the purpose. Statute 27(l)(a) lays down that there will be a Selection Committee for making recommendations to the Executive Council for appointment to the posts of Professors, Readers, Lecturers, Registrar, Finance Officer, Controller of Examinations and Librarian. Clause (3) of Statute 27 lays down that if the Executive Council is unable to accept any recommendation made by the Selection Committee. it shall record its reasons and submit the case to the Visitor for orders. Section 5 of the Act confers overall powers on the Visitor, the President of India, to annul any proceeding of the University which may not be in conformity with the provisions of the Act, Statutes or the Ordinances. 5. The scheme of the Act and the Statutes indicates that Selection for appointment to the post of Lecturers is made by Selection Committee constituted under the Statutes. The appointment to the Lecturers' post shall be made by the Executive Council on the recommendation of the Selection Committee. If the Executive Council, for any reason, does not agree with the recommendation made by the Selection Committee, it may refer the matter to the Visitor after recording its reason incorporating the grounds for its disagreement with the recommendation of the Selection Committee. If the Executive Council, for any reason, does not agree with the recommendation made by the Selection Committee, it may refer the matter to the Visitor after recording its reason incorporating the grounds for its disagreement with the recommendation of the Selection Committee. The Visitor may thereupon accept the recommendation made by the Executive Council and issue direction in accordance with those decisions or the Visitor may not agree with the recommendation made by the Executive Council and in that event, he may issue direction to the Executive Council for making appointment in accordance with the recommendations of the Selection Committee. The Act and the Statutes do not vest any power in the Executive Council to ignore or by-pass the recommendation made by the Selection Committee or to direct it to hold fresh interview or selection. The Executive Council is constituted by the Act and Statutes framed thereunder, it derives its powers from the Act and Statutes. It cannot exercise jurisdiction, which it does not possess under the provisions of the Act and Statutes. Statute 27(3) is manifestly clear in prescribing parameters of the powers of the Executive Council in relation to the recommendation of the Selection Committee. The Executive Council is empowered to make appointment in accordance with the recommendation of the Selection Committee but if it disagrees with the recommendations of the Selection Committee for any reason, Statute 27(3) confers power on the Executive Council to record reasons for its disagreement and submit the case to the Visitor for orders. The Selection committee is an authority constituted under the Statute and its recommendations have been given importance by the Statute and for that reason, the Executive Council is not vested with any power to set aside or to ignore the recommendations of the Selection Committee or to issue direction to it for holding fresh interview or selection. 6. Learned counsel representing the University referred to S. 10(1) of the Act and Statute 15(1) in support of his contention that the Executive Council being the Chief Executive body has power to issue directions to the other authorities of the University including the Selection Committee to remove injustice which may have been caused to any person. 6. Learned counsel representing the University referred to S. 10(1) of the Act and Statute 15(1) in support of his contention that the Executive Council being the Chief Executive body has power to issue directions to the other authorities of the University including the Selection Committee to remove injustice which may have been caused to any person. Section 10(1) lays down that the Executive Council shall, subject to the control of the Visitor, be the executive body of the University and shall have charge of the management and administration of the revenue and property of the University and the conduct of all administrative affairs of the University not otherwise provided for. This provision confers wide powers on the Executive Council for the purpose of carrying out management and administration of the University. It confers ancillary and incidental powers on the Executive Council for the purpose of conducting administration of the University in respect of matters not otherwise provided for. The use of the expression "not otherwise provided for" is significant. It means that the Executive Council has ancillary and residuary powers in respect of those matters which may not have been expressly provided under the Act or Statutes. But where the provisions of the Act and Statutes confer powers on the Executive Council to exercise the same in certain manner, the Executive Council has to exercise such powers strictly in accordance with those provisions in the manner laid down and with the restrictions prescribed thereunder. Statute 27(3) expressly confer powers on the Executive Council to refer the matter to the Visitor in a case where it does not agree with the recommendations of the Selection Committee on account of any defect or illegality or irregularity committed by the Selection Committee. The Statute does not confer power on the Executive Council to ignore the recommendations made by the Selection Committee or to issue any directions to hold fresh interview or selection. The opening clause of Statute 15 makes it clear that the Executive Council shall exercise powers subject to the provisions of the Act, Statutes and the Ordinances. Since Statute 27(3) confers a limited power on the Executive Council with respect to the recommendations of the Selection Committee, it cannot exercise any wider power. In this view of the matter, we do not find any merit in the submission made by the learned counsel representing the Banaras Hindu University. 7. Since Statute 27(3) confers a limited power on the Executive Council with respect to the recommendations of the Selection Committee, it cannot exercise any wider power. In this view of the matter, we do not find any merit in the submission made by the learned counsel representing the Banaras Hindu University. 7. In the instant case, the Selection Committee made recommendation to the Executive Council for appointment. The Executive Council did not make appointment in accordance with those recommendations instead it entertained representation from an aggrieved candidate who had not been called for interview by the Selection Committee; it ignored the recommendation of the Selection Committee and issued direction to the Selection Committee to hold the interview afresh. The Result of the decision taken by the Executive Council was that the recommendation made by the Selection Committee on the basis of interview held on 30th Jan. 1985 was ignored. The Executive Council, in our opinion, had no authority in law to ignore the recommendations made by the Selection Committee or to issue direction to the Selection Committee to hold interview again. The Executive Council exceeded its power in directing the Selection Committee to hold interview afresh. The Executive Council should have considered the recommendations of the Selection Committee for making appointment and if for any reason, it found itself unable to agree with those recommendations, it should have referred the matter to the Visitor for setting aside the same as enjoined by Statute 27(3). 8. Learned counsel for the University urged that this Court should not grant any relief to the petitioner as he has an alternative remedy of making representation to the Visitor under S. 5(7) of the Act. It is true that if a person is aggrieved by any act or omission of the Executive Council, he had remedy of making representation to the Visitor under S. 5(7) of the Act and in some cases this Court has taken view that alternative remedy before the Visitor is effective. However, existence of alternative remedy, is not an absolute bar to the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in a matter where the impugned order is found without jurisdiction. The principle that alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is well settled and we should not refer to decisions. The principle that alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is well settled and we should not refer to decisions. As discussed earlier, we are of the opinion that the impugned resolution of the Executive Council is totally without jurisdiction. We do not consider it a fit or proper to direct the petitioner to pursue alternative remedy as the case does not involve any question of fact and the Executive Council has usurped power which it does not possess under the law. 9. In the result, we allow the petition and quash the resolution dated 23/24 Feb. 1985 passed by the Executive Council as well as the letter dated 16-3-1985 issued by the Selection Committee. We direct the Executive Council to consider the recommendations of the Selection Committee in accordance with law. 10. There shall be no order as to costs.