JUDGMENT A. A. Desai, C.J. and M. C. Jain, J. 1. Heard Sri Ravi Kiran Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioners are the Executive Councillors of the Kumaon University. They made a representation to the Chancellor pointing out certain irregularities in the functioning of the Vice-Chancellor. Initially, they filed a writ petition since the representations were not decided. Ultimately order was passed deciding representation. The Chancellor after receiving the reply and explanation from the Vice-Chancellor reached the conclusion that the Irregularities as pointed out could not be substantiated. Hence, he rejected the representation. Mr. R. K. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners urged before us that they being the complainants. were entitled to have the copy of the reply as also right of participation in the proceedings before the Chancellor since the proceedings were quasi-judicial in nature. 3. The submission is totally untenable. The Chancellor is the administrative head of the University of the State and compliance of the regulations and statutes is to be ascertained by him to his satisfaction. The complainant could bring to his notice irregularities, in case, if any. However. the complainants have no statutory or otherwise any right of participation in a proceeding to ascertain genuineness or correctness of the complaint. 4. At this stage. Mr. Jain urged that the order as passed is not a speaking order. We have perused the order. The Chancellor has elaborately reproduced the substance of the grievance and reached a conclusion. As such, this submission is also factually erroneous. 5. We, therefore, do not see any merits in the grievance. We, therefore, dismiss the petition.