ORDER 1. Leave granted. 2. The issue in this appeal relates to the appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in King George's Medical University, Lucknow. The advertisement for the post had been published on 7-1-2004 under which applications were called inter alia for the post of Lecturer/Assistant Professor in Orthopaedic Surgery. The post was a reserved post. The advertisement a specified as under: "General information: The age (relaxation as per rules) and qualifications required are as per the First Statutes of Lucknow University or First Statutes of King George's Medical University, Lucknow, whichever is applicable at the time of interview. For such posts where qualification is not mentioned in the Statutes it will be same as per MCI recommendation. Candidates having minimum three years of teaching experience after the postgraduate degree in the subject concerned will be considered for appointment as Assistant Professor and if suitable candidates are not found for Assistant Professor then Selection Committee may consider for appointment as Lecturers." 3. According to the appellant the Statutes of the University provided for the necessary qualifications under 11.02A(1). The qualification required for Assistant Professor inter alia was three years of teaching experience after acquiring the requisite recognised postgraduate qualification or equivalent experience as defined by the Medical Council of India in the subject in a teaching medical institution. Provided that if suitable candidates with requisite teaching experience are not available, the Selection Committee may recommend candidates for appointment in lower grade i.e. Lecturers. 4. In this background, the appellant as well as Respondent 3 applied for appointment. The Selection Committee held interviews and recommended the appointments to the post of "Lecturers/Assistant Professors" in Orthopaedic Surgery as under: "Reserved (OBC-1 post) 1. Dr. Ajay Singh Selected Assistant Professor 2. Dr. Vijay Kumar WL-1 3. Dr. Amit Singh WL-2." According to the appellant, Dr. Vijay Kumar, Respondent 3, Dr. Ajay Singh, had been wrongly placed as the most eligible candidate in the select list since he did not have requisite qualification of three years of teaching experience. He made representation to the respondent authorities. 5. On 19-7-2004 the Executive Council held a meeting in which it was inter alia resolved that recommendation of the Selection Committee should be accepted with the modification that as Respondent 3 had got no teaching experience of three years after postgraduate degree he was appointed as Lecturer in Orthopaedic Surgery. He made representation to the respondent authorities. 5. On 19-7-2004 the Executive Council held a meeting in which it was inter alia resolved that recommendation of the Selection Committee should be accepted with the modification that as Respondent 3 had got no teaching experience of three years after postgraduate degree he was appointed as Lecturer in Orthopaedic Surgery. A letter of appointment was accordingly issued to Respondent 3 on 20-7-2004 offering appointment to Respondent 3' as temporary Lecturer/ Assistant Professor. 6. The appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court on 16-9-2004 challenging the appointment of Respondent 3. The High Court dismissed the writ petition in limine holding that the appellant had adequate alternate remedy under Section 53 of the King George's Medical University Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "the 2002 Act"). Being aggrieved the appellant preferred this appeal. 7. It appears to us that Section 53 of the 2002 Act would not really apply to the dispute relating to the appointment to the post of Lecturer. However, instead of remanding the matter back to the High Court we decided to take up the matter for decision on merit ourselves. 8. The appellant submitted that once Respondent 3 was not found qualified for the post of Assistant Professor by reason of the lack of teaching experience, the post should have been offered to the appellant who was found qualified to be an Assistant Professor and who was No.2 in the select list. Secondly, it was submitted that it was not open to the Executive Council to vary the recommendation of the Selection Committee in terms of Section 35(9) of the 2002 Act which reads as under: . "35. (9) In the case of appointment of a teacher, 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 the reasons of such disagreement, and his decision shall be final." 9. It was also contended that the Executive Council did not have any power to downgrade the post to which Respondent 3 could be appointed because in terms of Statute 11.02A(1)(iv) only the Selection Committee could recommend candidates for appointment in lower grade provided suitable candidates with requisite teaching experience were not found available. It was also contended that the Executive Council did not have any power to downgrade the post to which Respondent 3 could be appointed because in terms of Statute 11.02A(1)(iv) only the Selection Committee could recommend candidates for appointment in lower grade provided suitable candidates with requisite teaching experience were not found available. It was also sought to be contended before us that the various documents produced by Respondent 3 seeking to prove his teaching experience were dubious and could not be relied upon. 10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent 1 has submitted that it was possible to construe Section 53 of the 2002 Act as affording an alternate remedy to the appellant. According to Respondent 1 the disputes involved were too factually disputed to be resolved under Article 226 of the Constitution. It was, therefore, suggested that the disputes raised by the appellant should be referred to the Chancellor in terms of Section 35(9) of the 2002 Act. 11. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent 3 contended that the procedure prescribed had been correctly followed. It was submitted that in fact Respondent 3 had the requisite teaching experience. He has relied upon the various documents in support of his case. According to Respondent 3, the appellant did not have a postgraduate degree which was recognised and was part of the eligibility criteria as mentioned in the advertisement itself. Respondent 3 has also stated that the Executive Council's decision to treat his appointment to the post of Lecturer was subsequently corrected by the issuance of an order on 1-11-2004 by which, with the approval of the Chancellor, Respondent 3 was appointed as Assistant Professor w.e.f. 20-7-2004. 12. We are of the opinion, that this is not a dispute which can be resolved summarily under Article 226. The only question is what may be the appropriate solution for deciding the question relating to the authenticity of the qualification certificates produced both by the appellant and Respondent 3. Although, the provisions of Section 35(9) may not be strictly applicable, nevertheless, we are of the view that the matter must be resolved by the Chancellor. Accordingly, the dispute delineated above must be resolved by the Chancellor within a period of six months from the date of the service of a copy of this order together with all requisite papers pertaining to this case before him. Accordingly, the dispute delineated above must be resolved by the Chancellor within a period of six months from the date of the service of a copy of this order together with all requisite papers pertaining to this case before him. The Chancellor shall hear the affected parties including the parties before us before disposing of the matter with a reasoned order. The appointment of Respondent 3 will be subject to the decision of the Chancellor. Pending disposal of the matter by the Chancellor, status quo as of today shall continue to operate. 13. The appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.