M. KATJU AND D. R. CHAUDHARY, JJ. ( 1 ) HEARD Dr. Ram Shanker Dwivedi and Shri V. S. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner, shri Neeraj Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 and Shri B. D. Upadhyaya, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. ( 2 ) THE petitioner is challenging the impugned orders of the Chancellor dated 28. 10. 98 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) and the order dated 26. 11. 98 (Annexure-A-14 to the counter-affidavit ). The dispute in this case relates to the Kumaun University, Nainital. In paragraph 3 of the petition, it is stated that an advertisement was made in the newspaper amar ujala for selecting persons for the posts of Lecturer/reader/professor in the University. The petitioner applied for the post of Lecturer in M. B. A. Department. The interview was held by the selection Committee constituted under Section 31 (2) of the U. P. State Universities Act, 1973 on 23. 10. 98, as stated in para 7 of the writ petition. The Selection Committee met and made its recommendation to the Executive Council. Thereafter the impugned order of the Chancellor dated 28. 10. 98 was communicated by the letter of the Vice-Chancellor to the petitioner dated 9. 2. 99 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition ). By that order, the Executive Council was restrained by the Chancellor from considering the recommendations made by the Selection Committee. ( 3 ) IN this case on 16. 2. 99, the respondents had been granted three weeks time to file counter affidavit. Thereafter on 20. 8. 99. Shri Neeraj Tripathi appearing for the Chancellor was granted two weeks and no more further time to file counter affidavit. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the University but no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Chancellor. ( 4 ) SHRI Neeraj Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the Chancellor stated that the Impugned order was passed because there was some complaint to the Chancellor that the Vice-Chancellor wanted to get his own son appointed as a Lecturer. ( 5 ) ALTHOUGH there is no counter affidavit on behalf of the Chancellor in this connection, we have carefully perused the counter affidavit of the University. ( 5 ) ALTHOUGH there is no counter affidavit on behalf of the Chancellor in this connection, we have carefully perused the counter affidavit of the University. It has been stated in para 3 (1) of the counter affidavit of the University that the Vice-Chancellor did not participate in the Selection committee for the post of Lecturer as his son was also a candidate, and hence the vice-chancellor withdrew from the Committee as per Statute 11. 05 [4) of the University Statutes which states : "a member of the Selection Committee shall withdraw from a meeting of the Committee or of the Executive Council, as the case may be. If the question of appointment of any of the relatives (as defined in the Explanation to Section 20) of such member is being or is likely to be considered at such meeting. " ( 6 ) IT is also alleged in para 3 (I) of the counter affidavit that in the absence of the vice-Chancellor, one of the experts worked as Chairman of the Selection Committee. ( 7 ) THE relevant correspondence between the Vice-Chancellor and the Chancellor is contained in annexures CA 12 to CA15 to the counter affidavit. Annexure CA12 is the letter dated 28. 10. 98 of the Secretary to the Chancellor stating that there were some complaints regarding the selections in the University and hence the bio-data of the candidates should be sent to the chancellor, and till further orders of the Chancellor, the recommendations of the Selection committee should not be placed before the Executive Council. In response to this letter, the vice-Chancellor wrote a letter to the Chancellor dated 2. 11. 98, (Annexure-CA-13) stating that there were no irregularities in the selections, and the complaint was motivated. The Chancellors secretary then wrote to the Vice-Chancellor (vide letter dated 26. 11. 98 Annexure-CA14) that it appeared that in the Selection Committee meeting held on 23. 10. 98, the son of the vice-Chancellor. Manu Pratap Singh, had appeared as a Candidate and hence the vice-Chancellor should not have sat in the Selection Committee for that post, in view of Statute 11. 05 (3), and it was not enough that he withdrew only when his son appeared before the committee, Another allegation was that ineligible persons were permitted to appear. Hence the chancellor directed quashing of the selection of Lecturer in M. B. A. Department. 05 (3), and it was not enough that he withdrew only when his son appeared before the committee, Another allegation was that ineligible persons were permitted to appear. Hence the chancellor directed quashing of the selection of Lecturer in M. B. A. Department. The vice-Chancellor sent a reply dated 29. 11. 98 (Annexure-CA15) stating that he had totally disassociated himself from the Selection Committee for the selection on the post in question, and the correct facts were not placed before the Chancellor, who had formed his opinion ex parte without giving an opportunity of hearing to the Vice-Chancellor. It was also denied that any ineligible person was interviewed. ( 8 ) IN para 3 (K) of the counter-affidavit, it is stated that the Vice-Chancellor informed the chancellor (vide letter dated 29. 11. 98, Annexure-CA15) that he had totally withdrawn from the selection Committee of Lecturers and this fact had not been brought to the notice of the chancellor when he passed the order dated 26. 11. 98. ( 9 ) WE are satisfied that the explanation given by the Vice-Chancellor in his letters to the chancellor is correct. It seems that some false complaint was made to the Chancellor in this connection, and without verifying the correct facts, the Chancellor has passed the order dated 26. 11. 98 (Annexure-CA14 ). ( 10 ) A perusal of the provisions of the U. P. State Universities Act shows that the appointment of the teachers in the University are made under Section 31 by the Executive Council on the recommendation of the Selection Committee. However, Section 31 (8) of the Act states that in the case of appointment of a teacher in 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 reasons for such disagreement and the decision of the chancellor thereupon shall be final. The Proviso to Section 31 [8) states that if the Executive council does not take a decision on the recommendation of the Selection Committee within four months from the date of meeting of such committee, then also the matter shall be referred to the chancellor. ( 11 ) IN our opinion. The Proviso to Section 31 [8) states that if the Executive council does not take a decision on the recommendation of the Selection Committee within four months from the date of meeting of such committee, then also the matter shall be referred to the chancellor. ( 11 ) IN our opinion. Section 31 (8) does not apply in this case at all because the Executive Council was not permitted to consider the recommendation of the Selection Committee at all in view of the impugned order of the Chancellor. The Proviso to Section 31 (8) also does not apply because it applies when the Executive Council does not take a decision within four months from the date of the meeting of the Committee, whereas in the present case the Executive Council was not permitted to consider the recommendation of the Selection Committee at all in view of the impugned order of the Chancellor. ( 12 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner has an alternative remedy under Section 68 of the Act. Section 68 applies if any question arises whether any person has been duly elected or appointed as or is entitled to be, 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 the Act or the Statutes or Ordinances, and in such cases the matter is to be referred to the chancellor whose decision thereon shall be final. In the present case, there was no appointment at all, and hence Section 68 has no application. The Second Proviso to Section 68 gives suo motu power to the Chancellor in exceptional circumstances to entertain references after the expiry of three months. In our opinion, this proviso only extends the period of limitation for making references, and moreover there are no exceptional circumstance in this case. ( 13 ) BY an amendment application, the petitioner challenged the order of Chancellor dated 26. 11. 98 which has been annexed as Annexure-CA14 to the counter affidavit. By that order the chancellor has directed quashing of the selection for Lecturer in M. B. A. Department. ( 13 ) BY an amendment application, the petitioner challenged the order of Chancellor dated 26. 11. 98 which has been annexed as Annexure-CA14 to the counter affidavit. By that order the chancellor has directed quashing of the selection for Lecturer in M. B. A. Department. ( 14 ) WE have already considered the order dated 26. 11. 98 and are of the opinion that it proceeds on a misconception and was passed ex-parte, it is hence arbitrary and Illegal. ( 15 ) IN view of above discussion. the writ petition is allowed, the impugned orders of the chancellor dated 28. 10. 98 and 26. 11. 98 are quashed. We direct that the Executive Council must meet within three months from today and pass appropriate orders on the recommendation of the selection Committee in accordance with law. The petitioner will produce a certified copy of this order before the Executive Council of the University and the Vice-Chancellor within three weeks from today. .