Before dealing with factual matrix of the three writ petitions, it would be pertinent to mention that there existed some dispute between the two set of the Management Committees, one rep resented by Akhleshwar Chaturvedi who has preferred Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 23378 of 1988 and the Managing Commit tee headed by Sri Shriniwas Mani Tripathi which was recognised by the Vice-Chan cellor by his order dated 14-8-1985 and the same was also recognised by the Assistant Registrar, Firms and Societies Varanasi vide his orders dated 10-7-1985 and 27-2-1986. Shri Shriniwas Mani Tripathi filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6563 against the order dated 27-2-1986 and obtained stay order. The Vice-Chancellor on the basis of the stay order of this Court set aside his earlier order dated 14-8-1985 by means of his order dated 12-9-1985. 2. The Committee of Management headed by Shri Akhleshwar Chaturvedi preferred Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7116 of 1986 before this Court assailing the selection of the principal. The said writ petition was dismissed on 3rd December, 1987 on the ground of availability of alter native remedy under Section 68 of the Act. Thereafter a representation under Section 68 of the State Universities Act was preferred on behalf of the Committee of Management of institution in question by Shri Akhleshwar Chaturvedi claiming himself to be the Manager of the said Committee of Management. 3. The controversy center around on the question of appointment of the Prin cipal of Radha Krishna Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya Deoria. One Shri Bansraj Tripathi admittedly retired on 30th June, 1984 who was Principal of the said Col lege. Although there is a controversy as to who after him functioned as a Principal of the said Institution but according to Shri Ranjit Tripathi, the respondent No. 5 who was working as Principal, Sri S. M. Tripathi was validly elected as Manager of the In stitution and he still holds the office of the Manager. The Committee of Management selected Sri Ranjit Tripathi as Principal on 8- 12-1985, thereafter the said selection was approved by the Vice-Chancellor of the Sanskrit University Varanasi on 30th October, 1986. 4. First of all it was asserted in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 23378 of 1988 that the selection committee did not follow the procedure prescribed under the amended statute 11. 16 (1 ). 4. First of all it was asserted in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 23378 of 1988 that the selection committee did not follow the procedure prescribed under the amended statute 11. 16 (1 ). The said Statute came into force on 30th October, 1985 because vacancy for the selection of the post of Principal was advertised on 16-11-1984 and the date for interview was fixed on 2-2-1985. On that date interview could not take place for the reason that one Shri Sheo Shanker Tiwari claiming himself to be Officiating Principal raised certain ob jections and ultimately the interview took place on 8-12-1985. According to Shri S. M. Tripathi, he was the Manager of the Institution and was holding the office of the Manager. The appointment of the Principal was made as per provisions of statute 11. 16 (1) and was approved by the Vice-Chancellor. 5. It is well settled that the process of selection starts from the date of advertise ment. The advertisement was issued on 16-11- 1984 much before the amended Statute 11. 16 (1) which came into force from 30-10-1985 hence the contention that the selection of Sri S. M. Tripathi as Principal was bad, in view of the amended Statute 11. 16 (1) is totally misconceived. According to the University, the Managing Committee headed by Shri Akhlesh-war Chaturvedi was not recognised by the University under the provisions of Section 2 (13) of the Act and clause 12. 07 (b) of the statutes. Categorical statement was made by the University that the Managing Com mittee headed by Shri Shriniwas Mani Tripathi was legally constituted Managing Committee. 6. On a representation preferred under Section 68, which was a belated one, the Chancellor dealt with aspect of the matter and rightly expressed an opinion that by means of the present writ petition bearing No. 23378 of 1986 Shri Akhlesh-war Chaturvedi wanted to raise the dis pute about the Managing Committee. In-spite of the fact that the Chancellor by means of his order dated 6th June, 1986 had directed the Committee of Manage ment headed by Sri Akhleshwar Chatur vedi to seek his remedy before the Regional Deputy Director Education. In-spite of the fact that the Chancellor by means of his order dated 6th June, 1986 had directed the Committee of Manage ment headed by Sri Akhleshwar Chatur vedi to seek his remedy before the Regional Deputy Director Education. The Chancellor further expressed opinion that the Committee of Management headed by Shri Akhleshwar Chaturvedi has no locus standi to assail the appointment of the Principal because he was not an aggrieved person in accordance with Section 68 (b) of the State Universities Act. Shri Akhleshwar Chaturvedi was not an ap plicant for the post of the Principal. No prejudice would have been caused to him due to appointment of Sri Ranjit Tripathi as a Principal. Actually, before the Chan cellor persistent endeavor of Sri Akhlesh war Chaturvedi was to get his claim as the Manager of the Committee of Manage ment adjudicated upon. The Chancellor refused to accept the contention of Shri Akhleshwar Chaturvedi for the reason that representation before him under Sec tion 68 was limited in its scope, meaning thereby as to whether the appointment, selection and approval of Shri Ranjit Tripathi, the respondent No. 6, was proper or not and in those collateral proceedings he could not have decided those questions. In view of the aforesaid reason the Chan cellor rejected the representation of the Committee of Management headed by Shri Akhleshwar Chaturvedi. 7. It was asserted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that after com ing into force of U. P. Higher Education Service Commission Act, 1980, the Managing Committee of the Institution is not entitled to hold any selection and in that regard no approval of the Vice-Chan-cellor of University would be necessary. No doubt the Act came into force prior to the selection made by the Managing Com mittee, but it was vehemently contended by the learned Counsel for the respon dents that Radha Krishna Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya imparts education only to the Intermediate Classes, but is affiliated to Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vish-wavidyalaya. This contention has been repelled by the learned Counsel for the petitioner who submits that the institution in question imparts Sanskrit education up to post graduate classes. 8. This contention has been repelled by the learned Counsel for the petitioner who submits that the institution in question imparts Sanskrit education up to post graduate classes. 8. We need not deliver into that aspect of the matter for the simple reason that the right of Sri Akhleshwar Chatur vedi as the Manager of the Committee of Management is surrounded by mist and it cannot be said that he represents the Com mittee in the capacity of a Manager which is neither recognised by the Registrar Firms and Societies nor by the Univer sities. Furthermore, his representation to the Chancellor was under Section 68 as sailing the appointment of respondent No. 6 as the Principal. In the representation he raised dispute about the character of the Managing Committee and claimed that he represented the real Managing Com mittee. This contention was repelled by the Chancellor, who stated that the Managing Committee headed by Akhlesh war Chaturvedi was never recognised either by the University Authorities or by the Registrar Firms and Societies and he himself directed the petitioner to get that question adjudicated upon by the Registrar Firms and Societies. Beside the above, he cannot be said to be an aggrieved person within the meaning of Section 68 (b) of the said Universities Act. The Chan cellor of the University in a very detailed order have dealt with the question, in volved in the writ petition and reached the correct conclusion, hence we are not in clined to interfere. The writ petition bear ing No. 23378 of 1988 is dismissed. Similar would be the fate of Civil Misc. Writ Peti tion No. 19008 of 1998 and Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7566 of 1990 which were preferred assailing the selection of respondent No. 6 by the Managing Committee dated 30th October, 1986, the ap proval granted by the Vice-Chancellor on 30th October, 1986 and the order of the Chancellor rejecting the representation preferred by the petitioner under Section 68 of Universities Act. The Chancellor has opined that under the provisions con tained in Section 68, the period of limita tion for filing such a representation is 3 but the representations were filed much beyond the date, prescribed under the Act and he also stated that the delay in filing the representation was not properly explained. The Chancellor has opined that under the provisions con tained in Section 68, the period of limita tion for filing such a representation is 3 but the representations were filed much beyond the date, prescribed under the Act and he also stated that the delay in filing the representation was not properly explained. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court over certain portions of the writ petition where petitioners have made a vain effort to explain the delay. The Chan cellor of the University, under the State Universities Act has been vested with wide powers. He has arrived at his conclusion on the basis of the material produced before him. The power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be exercised only if any Court sub-ordinate to it or the tribunal com mitted any mistake apparent on the face of record. But every mistake would not be subjected to judicial review, until and un less such mistake results into miscarriage of justice, only then the order of subor dinate Court or tribunal can be subjected to judicial review. In the present case mis take is not of as such which glares at the face of the Court. 9. We are of the view that it cannot be said that Chancellor while rejecting the representation under Section 68 has com mitted such a glaring mistake which can be subjected to judicial review. The matter pertains to the appointment of Principal m Sanskrit Institution. Writ petition was filed in the year 1989, since this last eight years the respondent No. 6 has been work ing as Principal of the Institution. It would be an abuse of process of law, if a person selected by the Managing Committee, ap proved by the Vice- Chancellor of the Sanskrit University be dislodged, par ticularly, when the representation under Section 68 preferred by the petitioner were rejected by the Chancellor, indicat ing cogent reasons. The writ petitions are misconceived and are accordingly dis missed. The interim orders shall stand dis charged. Petition dismissed. .