The controverty arising in this petition is simple and, therefore, we rush up through the relevant facts. 2. The petitioner, who was appointed as lecturer in Economics by a letter dated 12-7-1968, seeks quashing of impugned order dated 10-8-1984 Annexure "17" to the writ petition) passed by the Tribunal of arbitration under Section 36 of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973 (for short, the Act ). 3. The petitioner was served with a charge-sheet dated 20-1-1975. Thereafter an enquiry was conducted against the petitioner and the Vice-Chancellor eventually accorded approval for terminating the services of the petitioner oil 16-2-1977. Then the Committee of Management passed a resolution dated 21-2- 1977 to terminated the services of the petitioner. 4. Aggrieved, the petitioner made a representation to the Vice-Chancellor, which was rejected on 6-7- 1978. The petitioner then filed a writ petition No. 8292 of 1978 in this Court. By an order dated 14-7- 1983 (Annexure "9" to the writ petition), this Court disposed of the writ peti tion observing that the petitioner could raise the dispute under Section 36 of the Act before the Tribunal of Arbitration. 5. Thereafter in view of Section 36 of the Act the Tribunal of Arbitration was constituted comprising of three members-one being the nominee of the petitioner, the other being the nominee of the Committee of Management and third being the nominee of the Vice-Chancellor. The Tribunal of Arbitration was constituted on 27-1-1984 and its first meeting was scheduled to be held on 11-3-1984. 6. The petitioner addressed a letter to the Vice-Chancellor dated 9-3-1984) (Annexure "11" to the writ petition) stating that one Sri B. B. Lal, who was working in place of the petitioner, was married to the daughter of Sri B. K. Khare-the nominee of the Committee of Management, and, therefore, he had no hope of justice from him and that the Committee of Management be asked to replace the said nominee by someone else. With out taking cognizance of such protest of the petitioner, the Tribunal passed the impugned order dated 10-8-1984 (Annexure "17" to the writ petition ). The said order shows that whereas Sri B. K. Khari-the nominee of the Committee of Management and the convener-the nominee of the Vice-Chancellor-decided against the petitioner, the nominee of the petitioner accepted the petitioners case. 7. The said order shows that whereas Sri B. K. Khari-the nominee of the Committee of Management and the convener-the nominee of the Vice-Chancellor-decided against the petitioner, the nominee of the petitioner accepted the petitioners case. 7. The only question for consideration before us is whether it was just, proper or reasonable for the Tribunal to proceed in the matter despite the complaint of the petitioner that Sri B. K. Khare, nominee of the Com mittee of Management, is biased against him and that he be replaced by some impartial nominee. The case of the petitioner is that Sri B. B. Lal was appointed in his place and considering the close relationship of Sri B. K. Khare and Sri B. B. Lal, the petitioner apprehended a biased view from Shri B. K. Khare and injustice from the Tribunal. Learned Counsel for the Committee of Management submits before us that the Management, the petitioner and the Vice-Chancellor are free to nominate their members and the nominee of the Management, however deeply interested he is in the Management, cannot be sought to be replaced by the petitioner, as the petitioner, is free to have his own nominee. We do not see any logic in this argument. Simply because each party is free to have his own nominee, it does mean that he is free to nominate a relation or a person deeply interested in him. Justice should not only be done but it should appear to have been done. This has become a cliche for the judicial or quasi- judicial proceedings. The order of the Tribunal is nothing but a quasi-judicial order and, therefore, all safeguards must have been taken to nominate such a member as to inspire confidence and obviate apprehen sion of being biased. In our view, the Committee of Management has transgressed the ordinary norms of justice delivery system by nominating Sri B. K. Khare, who being the father-in-law of Sri B. B Lal, is deeply interested in the latter. The petitioner by presence of Sri B. K. Khare may legitimately apprehend that the latter will render a decision helping his son-in-law. From the close relationship of Sri B. K. Khare and Sri B. B. Lal, who has been appointed in place of the petitioner, the petitioner may reasonably infer the biased attitude of Sri B. K. Khare. 8. In A. K. Kraipak and Others. From the close relationship of Sri B. K. Khare and Sri B. B. Lal, who has been appointed in place of the petitioner, the petitioner may reasonably infer the biased attitude of Sri B. K. Khare. 8. In A. K. Kraipak and Others. v. Union of India and Others. , AIR 1970 SC 150 , it was ruled down that reasonable likelihood of bias is enough and it is not necessary to prove the actual injury or actual bias on the part of an authority against whom allegations of malice or bias are made. Therefore, it is immaterial whether Sri B. K. Khare, in fact, gave a decision helping his son-in-law or injuring the interest of the petitioner, but from the relationship of the two-Sri B. K. Khare and Sri B. B. Lal-the petitioner may reasonably infer the likelihood of bias and that is enough to vitiate the decision of the Tribunal. 9. For the reasons, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 10-8-1984 (Annexure "17" to the writ petition) passed by the Tribunal of Arbitration is quashed directing the Vice- Chancellor of the University, respondent No. 1, to constitute the Tribunal of Arbitration afresh within weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is presented to him by the petitioner, who undertakes to produce to same within one week from today. After constitution of an afresh Tribunal, as aforesaid, we hope and trust that the Tribunal of Arbitration will decide the peti tioners case within two months from the date of its re-constitution. Petition allowed. .