JUDGMENT 1. - I propose to dispose of both the matters by a common order. 2. In regard to relief sought in writ petitions a preliminary objection has been raised by learned Senior Advocate Mr. U.N. Bhandari that as the alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner, the writ petitions are not maintainable. My attention has been drawn to Sec.19 of Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner Act, 1987 (for short 1987 Act'). The proviso appended to sub-section (4) of Section 19 provides thus: "(4) The Vice-Chancellor shall, where immediate action is called for, have power to make an order so as to exercise any power or perform any function which is exercised or performed by any Authority under this Act or the Statutes : Provided that any person, who is aggrieved by an order made by Vice-Chancellor under this sub-section, may prefer an appeal before the Board within ninety days of the date on which the order is made and the Board may confirm, reverse or modify the said order." 3. According to Sec.2(e) of the 1987 Act 'Board' means the Board of Management of the University as constituted under Section 11. 4. Section 11 of the 1987 Act provides thus : "11. Board of Management. (1) The Vice-Chancellor shall, as soon as may be after appointed day, order the constitution of the Board of Management in accordance with the provisions of the Statutes. (2) The Board shall consist of such members, exercise such powers and perform such functions as may be prescribed." 5. Conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions demonstrates that every order of Vice Chancellor can be challenged by filing appeal before the Board constituted under Section 11 of the 1987 Act. The petitioner undeniably has not preferred appeal provided under 1987 Act. 6. Mr. S.P. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner on the other hand urged that the Vice Chancellor acted malafidely in the matter and has been impleaded as party in the writ petitions. As the Vice Chancellor is a member of the Board, the writ petitions are maintainable even without filing the appeal. Alternative remedy is not a bar in filing the writ petition where the doctrine of bias is pleaded. Reliance is placed on Amar Nath Chowdhary v. Braithwait and Co. Ltd., 2002 (1) SCT 845. 7. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and perused the record. Alternative remedy is not a bar in filing the writ petition where the doctrine of bias is pleaded. Reliance is placed on Amar Nath Chowdhary v. Braithwait and Co. Ltd., 2002 (1) SCT 845. 7. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and perused the record. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that petitioner should avail the remedy of appeal as provided under proviso to sub-section (4) of Section 19 of 1987 Act and Vice Chancellor should refrain himself from sitting in the Board constituted to hear the petitioner's appeal. 8. Consequently, I direct the petitioner to file appeal before the Board under the proviso of sub-section (4) of Section 19 of 1987 Act. As the order of Vice Chancellor shall be called in question in the appeal, the Vice Chancellor Dr. C.P.S. Yadav will not sit in the Board. One week time is granted to petitioner to file the appeal before the Board. Within this period the Board shall be constituted as per provisions of 1987 Act and the Board is directed to dispose of the appeal of petitioner within a period of fifteen days thereafter in accordance with law after providing the opportunity of hearing to the petitioner without being obsessed that the petitioner has approached this Court directly. Till the appeal is decided, the respondents shall maintain the status quo in the matter. 9. Both the writ petitions stand disposed of as indicated above. The interim orders passed during pendency of writ petitions shall stand vacated.Petition Disposed of. *******