Judgment S.K.Chattopadhyaya, J. 1. Though Education is a fundamental right of every citizen of this country but the vagaries and corruption in the administration of the Ranchi University has spoiled the career of hundreds of students is the allegation of the petitioners in these two writ applications. Though the question as to whether the petitioners can move this Court in their personal capacities, is not very material, the fact remains that these two students have brought to the notice of this Court as to how due to mal administration neither examinations are being held according to schedule nor results are being published in time as a result of which successful candidates are being deprived of the opportunities of appearing in the concerned entrance examinations for higher education and alike. 2. Whereas in CWJC No. 1545/97(R) the petitioner has highlighted the reasons for deplorable state of affairs in the Ranchi University which has resulted in not holding examinations in time and publication of result within statutory period, in CWJC No. 1695 of 1997(R), the petitioner has prayed for quashing the notification dated 2.5.97 by reason of which the Registrar of the University has superseded the earlier notification dated 21.4.97 by the order of Vice-Chancellor and also the order dated 8.8. 96 appointing Dr. Hasan as the Pro-Vice-Chancellor of the University for a second term. 3. As almost similar facts and laws are involved in these two applications, with consent of the parties, both have been heard together and this common judgment will govern the same. 4. Some admitted facts are that Dr. M. K. Hasan was appointed as Pro-Vice-Chancellor of the University by order of the Chancellor dated 12.9.90 and Dr. Hasan took charge on 14.9.1990. In view of Sec. 12(2) of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), though tenure of such post is for a period of three years, by an wireless message dated 13/14.9.1993 Dr. Hasan was allowed to continue on the said post beyond the expiry of his term until further orders. Again by order dated 8.8.96 Dr. Hasan was appointed as Pro-Vice-Chancellor with immediate effect for a period of further three years. Thus, since September, 1990 Dr. Hasan was allowed to continue on the said post beyond the expiry of his term until further orders. Again by order dated 8.8.96 Dr. Hasan was appointed as Pro-Vice-Chancellor with immediate effect for a period of further three years. Thus, since September, 1990 Dr. Hasan has been holding the post of the Vice Chancellor and as under Sec. 12(5) of the Act, a pro-Vice-Chancellor is required to perform only those specific statutory works, by the order of the Vice-Chancellor an office orders was issued on the 21st April, 1997, directing inter aha, that the files concerning admission and conduct of examinations upto Bachelor course and the publication of results of the examinations conducted by the University upto that level shall be submitted to respondent No. 3 by the Controller of examination and Dean, students welfare respectively and the Pro-Vice Chancellor shall dispose of these files at his level in accordance with the provisions laid down in Sec. 12(5) of the Act. The Pro-Vice Chancellor was to submit the action taken from time to time in this regard to the Examination Board/Vice Chancellor and the files concerning admission, conduct of examinations and publication of results thereof other than the Bachelor examinations shall be submitted to the Vice-Chancellor by the Pro-Vice-Chancellor. The said notification dated 21.4.97 expressly stated that the files concerning involvement of finance be routed through the Registrar to the Financial Advisor who will place it before the Vice-Chancellor directly and the files concerning establishment be routed thought the Registrar to the Vice-Chancellor directly. This notification was, however, superseded by another notification dated 2.5.97 by the order of the Vice-Chancellor by reason of which it was directed that the movement of files relating to finance, establishment and other matters will be routed to the Vice-Chancellor through the Pro-Vice-Chancellor. It was further directed that the files relating to finance will be submitted by the Registrar to the Financial Advisor who will send the same to the Vice-Chancellor through Pro-Vice-Chancellor. It may be mentioned here that all the aforesaid orders/notifications have been annexed by the petitioners in the writ applications. 5. It was further directed that the files relating to finance will be submitted by the Registrar to the Financial Advisor who will send the same to the Vice-Chancellor through Pro-Vice-Chancellor. It may be mentioned here that all the aforesaid orders/notifications have been annexed by the petitioners in the writ applications. 5. In the backgrounds of aforesaid admitted facts, the grievances of the petitioners may be stated: According to the petitioner in CWJC No. 1545/97(R) since quite some time the students of the University were feeling agitated for not conducting examinations as well as publication of results thereof which ultimately prevented them from appearing in Entrance Examinations and to persue their higher studies. This frustration ultimately compelled some of the students to enter the chamber of the Vice-Chancellor on 21.4.97 and the Vice-Chancellor was humiliated. The petitioner happened to be present in the University campus on that eventful day. It is stated that on the same day the Vice-Chancellor wrote to the Pro-Vice-Chancellor pointing out his responsibilities as Pro-Vice-Chancellor for conducting examinations and publishing the results thereof in time. He also lamented that the examinations are 2-3 years behind the schedule and requested the Pro-Vice-Chancellor to devote full time in this regard realising the predicament of the students. Though to this effect office order was issued on 21.4.97 indicating sphere of work and responsibilities of the Vice-Chancellor vis-a-vis Financial Adviser but, it is alleged, that due to some influence, the said notification was cancelled and in suppression of the same, another notification was issued on 2.5.97 giving power to the Provice Chancellor to go through the files relating to financial matters before placing it before the Vice-Chancellor. The petitioner has alleged that prior to issuing of office order dated 21.4.97 the Pro-Vice Chancellor was enjoying the financial power and taking advantage of his position, he was indulging in all sorts of financial irregularities and thus misappropriated huge fund of the University. Some documents have been annexed to substantiate this allegation. It is the case of the petitioner that as because by office order dated 21.4.97 the financial power of Dr. Hasan was taken away, there was some ill-feeling and Dr. Hasan could manage to get the order dated 21.4.97 cancelled in less than a month i.e. on 2.5.97 by getting another order issued. 6. It is the case of the petitioner that as because by office order dated 21.4.97 the financial power of Dr. Hasan was taken away, there was some ill-feeling and Dr. Hasan could manage to get the order dated 21.4.97 cancelled in less than a month i.e. on 2.5.97 by getting another order issued. 6. On these premises, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to hold examinations and publish the results within stipulated statutory period. Further prayer has been made to direct the Pro-Vice-Chancellor to perform his statutory duties strictly within the fore-corners of the provisions of the Act without spending any time on financial matters which is outside his jurisdiction. 7. It is not in dispute that the Pro-Vice-Chancellor was appointed on the said post in the year, 1990 and after expiry of the term he was allowed to continue on that post by different successive orders. It is stated that though he was appointed in the post of Pro-Vice-Chancellor in August, 1990, he was permitted to spend thousands of rupees each month even after expiry of his terms in the year, 1993 because there was no Financial Advisor. The bills were used to be routed to the Vice-Chancellor through the Pro-Vice-Chancellor. According to the petitioner though Sec. 30(2) of the Act mandates for publication of results of the examinations within 60 days of the completion of the examination, the respondents are not in a position to either hold examination according to the schedule or to publish the result of the same within the time prescribed under the Act, Annexure 10 as a chart showing conduct of examinations for the post few years up to Bachelor level and declaration of results thereof. 8. From the averments made in both the cases it appears that primarily the petitioners are aggrieved by the chaotic situation prevailing in the University which ultimately tells upon the career of thousands of students in the University. Neither examinations are held within time nor results are being published within the statutory period. According to the petitioners this situation has arisen in the University for the reasons that the Pro-Vice-Chancellor who was required to perform his statutory duties, is much interested in handling the financial matters for the obvious reasons and thereby totally ignoring his actual spheres of work by holding examinations and publishing results thereof. According to the petitioners this situation has arisen in the University for the reasons that the Pro-Vice-Chancellor who was required to perform his statutory duties, is much interested in handling the financial matters for the obvious reasons and thereby totally ignoring his actual spheres of work by holding examinations and publishing results thereof. It is alleged that though the statute does not empower the Chancellor to re-appoint the Pro-Vice Chancellor but for the reasons best known to the Chancellor, Dr. Hasan has been allowed to continue for several years on the said post, either by issuing teleprinter message or by further notification. It is asserted that this has emboldened Dr. Hasan to misue his power indiscriminately even by misappropriating huge sum of money. 9. Mr. Rajeev Kumar, earned Counsel for the petitioners in both the applications, has drawn our attention to the relevant provisions of the Act in support of his contention that once the tenure had expired for the said post, the Pro-Vice-Chancellor could not have been allowed to continue in his post through a telegraphic instruction. According to him respondent No. 3 could manage to influence the higher authorities in obtaining not only the said instruction but also, in derogation of statutory provisions, usurped the function of the Financial Advisor for his personal gain as a result of which not only holding of examinations are being delayed but also the University has suffered a financial loss. 10. Mr. M.K. Laik appearing on behalf of the Vice-Chancellor and the Registrar of the University, however, has contended that in view of Sec. 12 of the Act the Chancellor has power to re-appoint the Pro-Vice-Chancellor on the said post even after expiry of his tenure because it is his prerogative. 11. Mr. V. Shivnath appearing on behalf of the Pro-Vice-Chancellor, refuting the arguments of Mr. Rajeev Kumar, submitted that in absence of any provision under the Act that a person appointed as Pro-Vice-Chancellor cannot be re-appointed on the said post, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the Chancellor in re-appointing respondent No. 4 Pro-Vice-Chancellor. According to him it is a fresh appointment and not a re-appointment as has been suggested by the petitioners. According to him it is a fresh appointment and not a re-appointment as has been suggested by the petitioners. Referring to the prayer made by the petitioner in CWJC No. 1695/97(R) it is submitted that the petitioner cannot get the second relief sought for inasmuch as the petitioner cannot be said to be an aggrieved person. Referring to various documents annexed by the petitioner, Mr. Shivnath has submitted that the petitioner has forged some documents to malign the Pro-Vice-Chancellor and on this score itself the writ application in the nature of public interest Litigation must be dismissed. Referring to the decisions reported in AIR 1965 SC 491 , AIR 1987 Kerala, 140, AIR 1982 Delhi, 83 and AIR 1975 Delhi 66, it is contended that if the court comes to a conclusion that the Pro-Vice-Chancellor was legally appointed by the Chancellor in exercise of his power under Sec. 12 (1) of the Act as contained in Annexure 12, no writ of co-warranto can be issued. 12. Mrs. I. Sen Choudhary, learned S.C.I. appearing on behalf of the Chancellor of the Universities, respondent No. 1. contended that initially respondent No. 4 was appointed as Pro-Vice-Chancellor on 12.9.90 and his term expired on 12.9.93. Referring to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 she urged that after expiry of his term the Pro-Vice-Chancellor was allowed to continue on temporary arrangement by the Chancellor till such time his successor is appointed. She has also given example of other Pro-Vice-Chancellors of different Universities who were allowed to continue even after expiry of their terms on the said post. Referring to para 10 of the counter affidavit, she continues, that the State Government, by its communication dated 5.2.94, sent a number of names to the Chancellor for consideration for the post of Vice-Chancellors in various Universities. The name of the present Pro-Vice-Chancellor, namely, Dr. M.K. Hasan also figured as Pro-Vice-Chancellor of the Ranchi University. Continuation of Dr. Hasan, according to this affidavit, was purely on academic and administrative interest of the University and after receipt of the recommendations of the State Government, the Chancellor considered the other names also and finally in consultation with the State Government, Dr. Hasan was appointed as Pro-Vice-Chancellor of the Ranchi University. 13. In order to appreciate the contentions raised on behalf of the parties some relevant provisions of the Act are required to be noticed. Hasan was appointed as Pro-Vice-Chancellor of the Ranchi University. 13. In order to appreciate the contentions raised on behalf of the parties some relevant provisions of the Act are required to be noticed. The Act known as the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 (Bihar Act 23 of 1976) was enacted to establish and incorporate Affiliating cum-Teaching Universities at Muzaffarpur, Bhagalpur, Ranchi, Gaya (Bodhgaya) and Darabhanga in the State of Bihar, Section 2(e) defines Chancellor as the Chancellor off the University, Similarly Sec. 2(n) defines Pro-Vice-Chancellor which means the Pro-Vice-Chancellor of the University. Sec. 7 indicates the posts held by different officers of the University which are as follows: 7. Officers of the University:- -The following shall be the officers of the University: (1) The Chancellor; (2) The Vice-Chancellor; (3) The Pro-Vice-Chancellor; (4) The Financial Adviser; (5) The Dean, Students Welfare; (6) Proctor; (7) Registrar (8) Inspector of College; (9) Finance Officer; (10) Such other person or persons as may be declared officers of the University by the Statutes. 14. The power of the Chancellor has been enumerated in Sec. 9 of the Act. Similarly, Sec. 10(2) contemplates that the Vice-Chancellor of the University shall be appointed by the Chancellor in consultation with the State Government. This section also postulates the powers of the Vice-Chancellor of the University. In the instant case we are mainly concerned with Sec. 12 of the Act which relates to Pro-Vice-Chancellor. It read as follows: 12. Pro-Vice-Chancellor:- - (1) The Chancellor shall appoint the pro-Vice-Chancellor in consultation with the Government. (2) The Pro-Vice-Chancellor shall be a whole time officer of the University. He shall hold office on such conditions as may be determined by the Chancellor in consultation of the State Government, for a period not exceeding three years during the pleasure of the Chancellor. (3) Where the person appointed as Pro-Vice-Chancellor gets pension from the Central or the State Government or any University or from any other source, the amount of pension due to him from such source shall be deemed to be the part of his salary as Pro-Vice-Chancellor. (3) Where the person appointed as Pro-Vice-Chancellor gets pension from the Central or the State Government or any University or from any other source, the amount of pension due to him from such source shall be deemed to be the part of his salary as Pro-Vice-Chancellor. (4) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Pro-Vice Chancellor shall exercise such powers and perform such duties as may be prescribed or as may be conferred or imposed on him, from time to time by the Vice-Chancellor: (5) The Pro-Vice Chancellor shall be responsible for admission and conduct of the examination up to Bachelor course and the publication of the result of the examination conducted by the University up to Bachelor course and shall be responsible for students welfare. 15. From a perusal of this provisions it appears that prior consultation of the State Government is required for appointment of the Pro-Vice-Chancellor, Sub-section (2), however, provides that the Pro-Vice-Chancellor shall hold office on such conditions as may be determined by the Chancellor in consultation with the State Government for a period not exceeding three years during pleasure of the Chancellor. Sub-sec. (4) contemplates that the Pro-Vice-Chancellor shall exercise such powers and perform such duties as may be prescribed or as may be conferred or imposed on him from time to time by the Vice-Chancellor but this is, however, subject to the provisions of this Act. Sub-sec. (5) of Sec. 12 which was inserted by Act 3 of 1990, specifically provides that the Pro-Vice-Chancellor shall be responsible for admission and conduct of examination up to Bachelor course and the publication of result of the examination conducted by the University up to Bachelor course and shall be responsible for students welfare. Thus, this Sub-sec. empowers and authorises the Pro-Vice-Chancellor for admission and conducting examination upto Bachelor course and for publication of the result of the examination thereof. He is also responsible for the students welfare. Thus this Sub-sec. does not authorise the Pro-Vice Chancellor to deal with the financial matters of the University. Sec. 12A on the other hand, deals with the post of Financial Advisor who will be a whole time officer of the University to be appointed by the Chancellor either on deputation or byre-appointment from amongst the officers of the Indian audit and Account Services or any other Account Services of the Government of India. Sec. 12A on the other hand, deals with the post of Financial Advisor who will be a whole time officer of the University to be appointed by the Chancellor either on deputation or byre-appointment from amongst the officers of the Indian audit and Account Services or any other Account Services of the Government of India. It further provides that until such officer is appointed the present incumbent may continue to work as Financial Adviser. Sub-section (3) of this Section provides that in all proposals having financial implication the advice of the Financial Adviser shall be mandatory and Sub-section (4) indicates that he shall be ex-officio member of the Finance Committee. This Section further provides that the Financial Advisor shall work under the administrative control of the Vice-Chancellor and the Finance Officer shall work directly under the Control of the Financial Advisor. Sub-sec. (6) mandates that the Registrars responsibility would be to obtain advice of the Financial Advisor on all matters having Financial implications and the Registrar is required to mention specifically at the time of placing such a proposal before the Syndicate that the concurrence of the Financial Advisor has been obtained or that he has not concurred in the proposal. Moreover, if in any financial proposal the Vice-Chancellor or the Syndicate takes a decision contrary to the Financial Advisor, such a decision shall not be implemented and shall be forwarded by the Vice-Chancellor to the Chancellor whose decision in the matter shall be final and binding. It is also the responsibility of the Financial Advisor to see that all financial matters of the University are dealt with in accordance with the Act, Ordinance, Statures, University Ordinance, Regulations and the Rules framed thereunder. 16. From the aforesaid provisions it is amply clear that as far as the financial matters of the University are concerned, the Financial Adviser will have the final say subject to approval or dis-approval of the Chancellor. Thus, the powers, functions and responsibilities of the Pro-Vice-Chancellor vis-a-vis Financial Adviser are altogether different and none of these two officers can exercise their power in derogation of these specific statutory provisions. In this connection the provisions as laid down in Sec. 14A which deals with the office of Proctor may be looked into. Thus, the powers, functions and responsibilities of the Pro-Vice-Chancellor vis-a-vis Financial Adviser are altogether different and none of these two officers can exercise their power in derogation of these specific statutory provisions. In this connection the provisions as laid down in Sec. 14A which deals with the office of Proctor may be looked into. This section provides that the Proctor shall be appointed by the Vice-Chancellor from amongst such teachers of the University as are not below the rank of a Reader. Sub-sec. (2) of this section contemplates that the tenure of proctor shall be of two years and on the expiry of his tenure he may again be appointed. However, proviso to this Section states that the Vice-Chancellor on administrative grounds may send the Proctor back to his original post and appoint another Proctor for that post for the un-expired period of his term. Thus, from a comparative study of Sec. 12 and 14A, it is clear that whereas the Proctor can be re-appointed after expiry of his tenure of two years, there is no such provision for re-appointment of Pro-Vice-Chancellor after expiry of his tenure of three years. 17. On this statutory background the arguments convassed by the earned Counsel of the parties may be looked into. It is an admitted fact that the Pro-Vice-Chancellor, Dr. Hasan was appointed to the said post on 14.9.90 and his term expired on 13.9.93. However, it appears that by a telegraphic message/instruction dated 13/14.9.93 (Annexure 11) the Chancellor directed Dr. Hasan and other Pro-Vice Chancellors of different Universities to continue beyond expirty of the term until further orders. This power of the Chancellor has been defended by Mr. Choudhary, learned S.C. I by submitting that under Sec. 12(1) of the Act the Chancellor has the prerogative to pas such a direction with prior consultation of the State Government. 18. In our considered opinion the argument of learned S.C.I is not sustainable in law. We have already discussed above that though there is provision under Sec. 14(2) of the Act for re-appointment of Proctor even after expiry of his tenure but there is no such provision under Sec. 12 of the Act which empowers even the Chancellor of the Universities to allow a person to continue as Pro-Vice-Chancellor even after expiry of his tenure. 19. Mr. 19. Mr. K.N. Gope describing himself as the present Registrar of the Ranchi University, has sworn affidavit on behalf of the Chancellor stating therein that on the basis of a communication of the State Government dated 5.2.94, in which names of several persons were sent to the Chancellor for consideration for the post of Pro-Vice-Chancellor in various universities, the Chancellor issued the said telegraphic instruction directing continuation of Dr. Hasan on the post of Pro-Vice Chancellor of the Ranchi University purely on academic and administrative interest of the University. He has further stated that after receipt of the recommendations of the State Government the Chancellor considered other names sent by the Government and finally appointed Dr. Hasan as Pro-Vice-Chancellor of the University. These statements are made in para 10 of the counter affidavit and though have been verified as true to his information derived from there cords of the case, but surprisingly enough no such document has been annexed by the deponent which can suggest that the State Government had sent several names before the Chancellor and the Chancellor considered Dr. Hasan to be the fittest person to be re-appointed as Pro-Vice-Chancellor and thus-reappointed him as such on the recommendations of the State Government. In spite of opportunities given to the Standing Counsel to, produce the said letter of recommendation of the State Government she has failed to produce the same and, as such, we are compelled to observed that these statements have been made by Mr. Gope to mislead this Court. Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that some names were sent by the Government to the Chancellor for appointment of Pro-Vice-Chancellor, the law does not authorise the Chancellor to re-appoint Dr. Hasan on the post of Pro-Vice-Chancellor. 20. It is well settled that this country is governed by rule of law and the court will come heavily if there is any infraction of law and power is exercised arbitrarily. Very recently the Apex Court, in the case of P. Sadagopan and Ors. v. Food Corporation of India and Anr. , has observed that statutory Regulations can not be relaxed by executive instructions. Very recently the Apex Court, in the case of P. Sadagopan and Ors. v. Food Corporation of India and Anr. , has observed that statutory Regulations can not be relaxed by executive instructions. In the instant case when the law does not permit re appointment of a Pro-Vice-Chancellor after fixed statutory period of three years, we are constrained to hold that the Chancellor had no authority to issue telegraphic instruction in definance of statutory provisions Having held that the instruction of the Chancellor allowing Dr. Hasan to continue as Pro-Vice-Chancellor till further orders is bad in law, we are of the view that the subsequent notification appointing Dr. Hasan is also against the spirit of the Act and must be set aside. 21. The influence of the Pro-Vice-Chancellor, Dr. Hasan is writ large from the facts that when by the order of the Vice-Chancellor the Registrar issued a notification dated 21.4.97 divesting Dr. Hasan from exercising any financial power, on 2.5.97 itself the same was withdrawn without any reason. The office order dated 21.4.97 reveals that the Vice-Chancellor was of the opinion that on joining of Financial Advisor in the Ranchi University, the files relating to financial matters should be moved strictly as per the provisions of the Act and Statutes for expeditious disposal of the same. For that purpose he directed that the files concerning financial matters be reputed through the Registrar to the Financial Advisor and the Financial Adviser will place it before the Vice-Chancellor directly and the files concerning establishment be routed through the Registrar to the Vice-Chancellor directly. It was further directed that the files concerning admission and conduct of examination up to Bachelor course and the publication of the result of the examination conducted by the University up to Bachelor course as well as the files relating to the students welfare shall be submitted to the Pro-Vice-Chancellor by the controller of examination and Dean of Students welfare respectively. The Pro-Vice-Chancellor was to dispose of those files at his level. This was, according to the Vice-Chancellor, as per the provisions of Sec. 12(5) of the Act. The Pro-Vice-Chancellor was required to submit the actions taken from time to time in this regard to the Examination Board /Vice Chancellor. The Pro-Vice-Chancellor was to dispose of those files at his level. This was, according to the Vice-Chancellor, as per the provisions of Sec. 12(5) of the Act. The Pro-Vice-Chancellor was required to submit the actions taken from time to time in this regard to the Examination Board /Vice Chancellor. This office order further clarifies that the files concerning admission and conduct of examination and the publication of result of examinations other than Bachelor course shall be submitted to the Vice-Chancellor by the Pro-Vice-Chancellor. From this office order it is also clear that as soon as the Financial Adviser join his post in the University, the Vice Chancellor, in order to speedy disposal of the respective filed and smooth conduct of administration, bifurcated the spheres of work of the Financial Adviser vis-a-vis Pro-Vice-Chancellor which is in total compliance of the provisions of the Act. However, this office order dated 21.4.97 was all of a sudden superseded by another office order dated 2.5.97 as contained in Annexure 3. This fresh office order says that the movement of files relating to establishment and other matters will be routed to the Vice-Chancellor through Pro-Vice-Chancellor. Not only this, it further indicates that the files relating to finance were also required to be submitted by the Registrar to the Financial Adviser who, in turn, will sent the same to the Vice-Chancellor through the Pro-Vice-Chancellor. We fail to understand as to why the Vice-Chancellor was so prompt in superseding his earlier order dated 21.4.97 when uncontrovertedly the post of Financial Adviser did not fell vacant. This shows how the Administration in the Ranchi University is going on. 22. Pursuant to orders of this Court another counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Vice-Chancellor which has again been sworn by Sri K.N. Gope, the Registrar of the University. It states only about the measures taken by the University to make arrangement of holding examinations and publication of results. Statements made in paras 4 to 12 regarding distribution of answer books amongst the examiners fore valuation in time and not receiving makes from those examiners, existing of computer facilities in the University and making arrangement for bringing experienced persons in computer have been verified by Mr. Gope as true to his information and belief. We fail to understand as to how Mr. Gope as true to his information and belief. We fail to understand as to how Mr. Gope, being the Registrar of the University, has no personal knowledge about the facts stated in those paragraphs. Specific allegation of the petitioners that due to mal administration in the Ranchi University and internal bickerings among the officers the examinations are not being conducted according to schedule and results are not published in time, have not been controverted by the Vice-Chancellor through Mr. Gope. In such premises, we are of the view that the whole administration in the Ranchi University is in a shamble. Moreover, there is no explanation by the Vice-Chancellor as to under what circumstances and consideration he superseded his earlier office order dated 21.4.97 in which as per law he had directed that the filed relating to financial matters will be dealt with by the Financial Adviser and shall be submitted to him directly and the Pro-Vice Chancellor will only deal with the files relating to admission and conduct of examination up to certain course and the publication of the results thereof as well as the students welfare. There is no explanation as to what were the compelling reasons for withdrawing the said office order and issuing afresh office order on 2.5.97 empowering the Pro-Vice-Chancellor Dr. Hasan to go through the files relating to financial matters when the Financial Adviser was very much present in the University. We fail to understand as to how the Vice-Chancellor could direct the Financial Adviser to sent the files to him through the Pro-Vice-Chancellor. This direction of the Vice-Chancellor definitely indicates that he has made the Financial Adviser subordinate to the Pro-Vice-Chancellor which is not the intention of the Legislature. We have already indicated above that the Financial Adviser of the University is an ex officio member of the Finance Committee and even if financial proposals of the Vice-Chancellor or the syndicate is contrary to the decision of the Financial Adviser, such decision shall not be implemented and shall be forwarded to the Chancellor. This provision clearly indicates that the Financial Adviser of the University has statutory responsibility and power which cannot be taken away either by the Vice-Chancellor or even by the Chancellor. 23. The atmosphere which is existing in the educational institutions throughout the State of Bihar was painfully noticed by this Court in the case of Prafull Ranjan and three Ors. This provision clearly indicates that the Financial Adviser of the University has statutory responsibility and power which cannot be taken away either by the Vice-Chancellor or even by the Chancellor. 23. The atmosphere which is existing in the educational institutions throughout the State of Bihar was painfully noticed by this Court in the case of Prafull Ranjan and three Ors. V/s. The Chancellor and Ors. reported in 1994(1) PLJR 473. The Division Bench, at paragraph 3, inter alia, observed as follows: There are over a dozen Universities in the State, some created recently. There are large number of college, and thousands of teachers, casting a heavy burden on the State Exchequer, yet there is no education in the State of Bihar. There are many reasons which contribute to this unfortunate State of affairs and, perhaps some harsh decisions have to be taken before some semblance of discipline is restored in the University campus. At the same time to restore the glory of the Universities and to restore the academic atmosphere, which is completely absent, All concerned must be compelled to follow a code of conduct. Discipline is lacking not only in the students of the Universities but even in the students of the Universities but even in the teaching and non-teaching staff of the Universities. The Vice-Chancellor of the University who has a crucial role to play in the affairs of the University must be restored to his due status and respect. Unfortunately, the Vice-Chancellor, who in the days gone by, commanded grant respect and status, has been reduced to a more official at the beck and call of the powers that be in the Secretariat, not necessarily political but also bureaucratic. Having lost his importance in the functioning of the University, he is content with his designation and pathetic towards the affairs of the University knowing fully well that he cannot make any useful contribution in that direction. This State boasts of the largest number of professors in the Country, and some trent to believe that the number of professors engaged in the different universities of Bihar out number the total number of professors engaged in the other universities of the country. Large number of teachers have been illegally appointed without following and procedure and without even caring about their eligibility and qualifications. Large number of teachers have been illegally appointed without following and procedure and without even caring about their eligibility and qualifications. Large number of colleges which do not even qualify to be called an educational institution, have been declared constituent colleges of the various Universities. Reasons, purely political and monetary, are at the bottom of this pathetic situation, and education is the first casualty. It is, therefore, not surprising that there is exodus of serious minded students from the State, and it is not surprising that most of them perform brilliantly in other Universities of the country. Only the less fortunate ones are left behind, and it would be not an exaggeration to say that many of them complete three years course same times in five years, sometimes in six years and sometimes in seven years. A sense of frustration, therefore, is prevalent in the student community of the State, and unless the situation is arrested, the Government may have to perform the unpleasant duty of closing down the Universities. It appears that even after the said observations of the Division Bench the atmosphere in the Universities, instead of purification, has polluted further. The atmosphere in the Ranchi University is no exception and we can take judicial notice of the fact that without least bothering about the future of the students, the concerned officers of the University are busy in transgressing their respective statutory duties for their self interest and the Vice-Chancellor is made to remain a silent spectator. 24 As observed above, the Registrar of the University has tried to mislead the court by stating that on the recommendation of the Government the Chancellor selected the name of Dr. Hasan on amongst the names sent by the State Government. The Registrar has failed to satisfy us by producing any document worth the name which can even remotely suggest that Dr. Hasan was re-appointed on the recommendation of the Government. The submission of learned S.C.I. that as the Chancellor has appointed Dr. Hasan for the second term, it would be deemed that his appointment was with recommendation of the Government, in our view, is fallacious and fit to be rejected. The Chancellor may be the executive head but he is not the Government and as such, when law commands that the Chancellor shall appoint the Pro-Vice-Chancellor in consultation with the Government, it means that the consultation must be effective. The Chancellor may be the executive head but he is not the Government and as such, when law commands that the Chancellor shall appoint the Pro-Vice-Chancellor in consultation with the Government, it means that the consultation must be effective. Further more, the teleprinter message dated 13/14-1993 does not indicate that before allowing Dr. Hasan to continue on the said post after expiry of his tenure, the Chancellor had a consultation with the State Government. In such view of the matter, the said instruction cannot have any sanctity in the eye of law and must be held to be illegal. Consequently, the order dated 8.8.96 as contained in CWJC No. 1965\97(R) re-appointing the Vice-Chancellor is also liable to be set aside being illegal. 25. The argument of Mr. V. Shivnath that on the prayer made by the petitioners in the present writ applications, no writ of co-warranto can be issued, in our view, is only to be noted and rejected. The petitioners have not prayed for a writ of co-warranto, rather, they have prayed for a writ of certiorari for quashing the orders as contained in Annexures 11 and 3 by reason of which Dr. Hasan was allowed to continue to hold the post of Pro-Vice-Chancellor till further order and the officer by which the Vice-Chancellor, without any reason, withdrew his earlier office order dated 21.4.97. In these circumstances the decisions relied upon by Mr. Shivanath have no application. 26. In the result both the writ applications are allowed and the orders dated 13/14 September, 1993 as contained in Annexure 11 and 8.8.1996 are hereby quashed and consequently the office order dated 2.5.97 as contained in Annexure 3 of CWJC No. 1545/97 (R) is also quashed. Respondent No. 1 the Chancellor is hereby directed to take immediate step for appointment of Pro-Vice-Chancellor after due consultation with the State Government in Accordance with law. It is further directed that until and unless post of Pro-Vice-Chancellor is filled up by the Chancellor, the Vice-Chancellor of the University will personally deal with the matters of admission of the students, holding of examinations and publication of results thereof keeping in mind that the career of a student is more important than the fighting between the officers of the University for their supermacy.