Judgment ( 1. ) THIS is a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 22-12-1998 (Annexure P-19) by which the appointments of petitioner No. 1 as Professor and of petitioner No. 2 as Lecturer have been cancelled and for a direction to the respondents to reinstate them on these posts. ( 2. ) THE petitioners were interviewed by the Selection Committee on 30-4-1998 and recommended for appointment to the posts mentioned above. This recommendation was to be considered by the Executive Council of respondent No. 2 Awadhesh Pratap Singh University. The Governor of Madhya Pradesh in his capacity as Chancellor of this University through his Secretary gave instructions by the letter dated 18-8-1998 (Annexure B-2) to the Vice-Chancellor that no case for appointment to any post be placed in the meeting of the Executive Council. It was also stated in this letter that contravention of these instructions would be treated as an act of insubordination on the part of the Vice-Chancellor. Further, by letter dated 22-8-1998 (Annexure B-3) the Vice-Chancellor was again informed by the Secretary to the Governor that any appointment order could be issued only with the prior permission of the Chancellor. Yet a meeting of the Executive Council was held on 11-9-1998 and the resolution for appointment of the petitioners was passed. The Registrar of the University refused to issue the appointment orders in terms of the resolution and then the Vice-Chancellor directed the Assistant Registrar to issue the orders and he did so on 12-9-1998. A copy of the appointment order is Annexure P-4. The petitioners submitted their joining reports on the same date. It appears that a new Vice-Chancellor was appointed and the Executive Council by the resolution dated 15-12-1998 (Annexure P-18) annulled the resolution dated 11-9-1998 and then the impugned order dated 22-12-1998 was issued. This annulment was done on the ground of violation of the two orders of the Chancellor referred above. ( 3. ) THE petitioners case is that they were appointed after their selection by a duly constituted Selection Committee and their appointment orders could not be cancelled. It is also stated that it could not be done without giving a show-cause notice or opportunity of hearing to them. The respondent No. 4 has supported the case of the petitioners. ( 4. ) THE case of the respondent Nos. It is also stated that it could not be done without giving a show-cause notice or opportunity of hearing to them. The respondent No. 4 has supported the case of the petitioners. ( 4. ) THE case of the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 5 in their return is that the Executive Council could not pass the resolution dated 11-9-1998 in contravention of the directions of the Chancellor. A separate return has been filed on behalf of the Chancellor on 29-1-1999. It is stated in this return that there were many complaints from various quarters to the effect that there was mismanagement in the University and the appointments to various posts were being made in an illegal manner. One of these complaints emanated from the former Chief Minister Shri Arjun Singh and one such complaint was addressed to the Governor by a Member of the Parliament. The Chancellor on being satisfied that there was substance in these complaints issued instructions on 18-8-1998 and 22-8-1998 as mentioned above. It is submitted that the Chancellor has this power under Section 12 of the M. P. Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act ). It is also stated that by letter dated 11-12-1998 (Annexure B-17) instructions were given to the Vice-Chancellor to place the matter before the Executive Council for reconsideration of the resolution dated 11-9-1998 as per Section 12 (3) (b) of the Act. ( 5. ) THE learned Counsel for both the sides have been heard. Section 12 of the Act is as under :- "12. Kuladhipati and his powers.-- (1) The Governor of the Madhya Pradesh shall be the Kuladhipati of University. (2) The Kuladhipati shall, by virtue of his office, be the Head of the University and the President of the Court and shall, when present preside at meetings of the Court and at any convocation of the University. (3) The Kuladhipati may (a) call for any papers or information relating to the affairs of the University; and (b) for reasons to be recorded, refer any matter except a matter falling under Section 55 for consideration to any officer or authority of the University that has previously considered such matter. (3) The Kuladhipati may (a) call for any papers or information relating to the affairs of the University; and (b) for reasons to be recorded, refer any matter except a matter falling under Section 55 for consideration to any officer or authority of the University that has previously considered such matter. (4) The Kuladhipati may, by an order in writing, annul (a) any proceedings of any officer, authority, committee or body of the University, constituted by or under this Act, which is not in conformity with this Act, the Statutes, Ordinances or the Regulations, or (b) any proceedings of any authority, Committee or other body which has been referred to him by the Kulpati under Sub-section (7) of Section 15, if he is satisfied that such proceedings are prejudicial to the interests of the University : Provided that before making such order he shall call upon the officer, authority committee or body concerned to show cause why such an order should not be made and if any cause is shown within the time specified by him in this behalf he shall consider the same. (4-A) Where the Kuladhipati passes an order annulling the proceedings under Sub-section (4), he may make such subsequent order in relation thereto in conformity with this Act, Rules, Statutes, Ordinances or Regulations as he may deem fit in the interest of the University and the order so made shall be final. (5) Every proposal to confer an honorary degree shall be subject to the confirmation of the Kuladhipati. (6) The Kuladhipati shall exercise such powers as may be conferred on him by or under this Act. " ( 6. ) THE Chancellor as head of the University has the power to over-see the management of the University. The instructions and directions issued by the Chancellor must invariably be obeyed by the other officers and authorities of the University. In this case the Chancellor on the basis of the material placed before him must have been satisfied that there is mismanagement in the University and the appointments are not being made as per requirement of the law. The Chancellor issued the directions that proposal for any appointment should not be placed before the Executive Council and no appointment order should be issued without his approval. Therefore, the Vice-Chancellor or the Executive Council could not contravene these directions. The Chancellor issued the directions that proposal for any appointment should not be placed before the Executive Council and no appointment order should be issued without his approval. Therefore, the Vice-Chancellor or the Executive Council could not contravene these directions. In case the appointments were necessary prior approval of the Chancellor ought to have been taken. The head on collision should have been averted. The subsequent resolution dated 15-12-1998 is in conformity with the letter dated 11-12-1998 (Annexure B-17 ). ( 7. ) THERE was no need of issuing any show-cause notice to the petitioners on the facts and in the circumstances of this case. The resolution for their appointments was passed by the Executive Council violating the instructions of the Chancellor and the petition shows that the petitioners were also aware of the directions of the Chancellor. In Anuradha v. Ravishankar University, Raipur, 1982 MPLJ 180 , it has been held that no show-cause notice to the employee was necessary in such a situation. ( 8. ) IN the result this petition is dismissed.