I.A. Ansari, J.- By an advertisement, dated 25.05.2009, issued by respondent No. 1, namely, Tripura University, applications were invited for appointment to two unreserved permanent posts of lecturers, in the Department of Sanskrit, along with some other posts in various other departments. The petitioner applied and was accordingly interviewed, along with other candidates, on 11.12.2009, by a Selection Committee, which consisted of five members including the Head of the Department of Sanskrit, three experts from outside Tripura University and the Vice-Chancellor of the said University, who presided over the proceedings of the Selection Committee. The Selection Committee prepared a merit list and recommended accordingly the names for filling up the said two advertised posts of Lecturer in Sanskrit department. Following a complaint, received by the respondent University, an Inquiry Committee was constituted by the Executive Council of the respondent University, in its meeting, held on 10.01.2010, for the purpose of examining the entire process of selection relating to appointment of Lecturers/Assistant Professors in the Departments of Geography, Disaster Management and Sanskrit. The Inquiry Committee, so constituted, submitted its report and the said report, along with the recommendations made by the Selection Committee, came up, on 24.04.2010, for consideration, in the meeting of the Executive Council of the respondent University. The Executive Council resolved that the post of Lecturers/Assistant Professors in Geography, Disaster Management and Sanskrit be re-advertised. The Executive Council further resolved that the University should maintain, in future, proper screening process as per rule. 2. The Executive Council resolved that the post of Lecturers/Assistant Professors in Geography, Disaster Management and Sanskrit be re-advertised. The Executive Council further resolved that the University should maintain, in future, proper screening process as per rule. 2. Aggrieved by the fact that the recommendations of the Selection Committee had not been acted upon by the Executive Council and its resolution had been adopted, as indicated hereinbefore, to re-advertise the posts of the Lecturer of Sanskrit, the petitioner has filed this writ petition, under Article 226, seeking to invoke the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court quashing the resolution adopted, on 24.04.2010, by the respondent University and, further, comman­ding the respondent University to give effect to the recommendations made by the said Selection Committee, the principal ground of challenge, posed by the petitioner to the decision to re-advertise the post, being that the respondent University has acted beyond its powers in deciding, without a reference, in this regard, having been made to the Visitor of the University, not to act on the recomm­endations of the Selection Committee and to re-advertise the vacancies, in respect of two posts of Lecturer of Sankrit in the respondent University. 3. Resisting the writ petition, the respondents have contended that while the recommendations of the Selection Committ­ee, in respect of some subjects, were accep­ted, the recommendations, made as regard the posts of Lecturer of Sanskrit, was not accepted, the envelope, containing the recommendation of the Selection Committee recommending the names of successful candidates, was not even opened, because there was a complaint received against the selection of Sanskrit candidate by the Interview Board and as the envelope, containing the recommendation of the Selection Committee, had not been opened by the Executive Council, the respondent University was not aware as to whether the petitioner's name had been recommended or not by the Selection Committee and as there was a complaint received, the respondent University had constituted an Inquiry Committee and, after examining the Inquiry Report, which had suggested that the posts should be re-advertised, the Executive Council accepted the recommendations of the Inquiry Committee and accordingly decided to re-advertise the posts, in question. 4. I have heard Mr. R. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. A. Lodh, learned Assistant Solicitor General, appearing on behalf of the respondents. 5. 4. I have heard Mr. R. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. A. Lodh, learned Assistant Solicitor General, appearing on behalf of the respondents. 5. While considering the present writ petition, it may be noted that under Section 9 of the Tripura University Act, 2006 (in short, the Act of 2006), the President of India shall be the Visitor of the University. The constitution and composition of the Selection Committee are also provided under the Act of 2006 and in terms of Section 18(2), the Vice-Chancellor or in his absence, the Pro-Vice Chancellor, shall convene and preside at the meeting of the Selection Committee. The provisions, relevant for the purpose of this writ petition, appearing in sub-sections (3) (4) (5) of Section 18, read as under: "(3) The Vice-Chancellor or in his absence; the Pro-Vice Chancellor, shall convene and preside at the meeting of the Selection Committee. Provided that the meeting of the Selection Committee shall be fixed after prior consultation with, and subject to the convenience of Visitor's nominee and the experts nominated by the Executive Council: Provided further that the proceedings of the Selection Committee shall not be valid unless - a) Where the number of Visitor's nominee and the persons nominated by the Executive Council is four in all, at least three of them attend the meeting ; and b) Where the number of Visitor's nominee and the persons nominated by the Executive Council is three in all at least two of them attend the meeting. (4) The procedure to be followed by the Selection Committee shall be laid down in the Ordinances. (5) If the Executive Council is unable to accept the recommendations made by the Selection Committee, it shall record its reasons and submit the case to the Visitor for final orders." 6. A careful reading of what sub- sections (3), (4) and (5) of Section 18 shows is that the recommendations of the Selection Committee, if accepted by the Executive Council, can be acted upon without any reference being made to the Visitor of the University. When, however, the Executive Council is 'unable' to accept a recommen­dation made by the Selection Committee, it shall record its reasons and submit the case to the Visitor for final orders. When, however, the Executive Council is 'unable' to accept a recommen­dation made by the Selection Committee, it shall record its reasons and submit the case to the Visitor for final orders. This clearly shows that in case of disagreement with the recommendation (s) made by the Selection Committee, the Executive Council of respondent University shall submit the case to the Visitor, i.e., the President of India, for his final order, to be passed by the Visitor, and while so submitting the case for final order to the Visitor, the Executive Council shall record the reason, which according to the Executive Council, had rendered the Selection Committee's recommendation unacceptable. 7. In the case at hand, according to the respondent University, as against the selection made in respect of the post of the Lecturer/Assistant Professor in the Department of, amongst others, Sanskrit, there was a complaint received, an Inquiry Committee was constituted and, on considering the Inquiry Committee's recommendations, which suggested re-advertisement of the post, the post was resolved to be re-advertised. That the Executive Council has the power not to accept the recommendations made by the Selection Committee cannot be doubted. However, the decision of the Executive Council not to act on the recommendation of the Selection Committee cannot be arbitrary meaning thereby that as administrator, the Executive Council must take into account all such factors, which are relevant and must keep eschewed from the purview of its cons­ideration all such factors, which may be irrelevant. This apart, the Executive Council has to assign reason for not accepting the recommendations of the Selection Committee and with the reason, so assigned, the Executive Council has to submit the case to the Visitor for final order. 8. In the present case, though the Executive Council decided, on the basis of the recommendations made by the Inquiry Committee, not to act upon fee recommendations made by the Selection Committee, it assigned no reason as to why it had accepted the report of the Inquiry Committee inasmuch as it was undoubtedly open to the Executive Council not to act upon the inquiry report submitted by the Inquiry Committee or on the recommendations/suggestions for re-advertisement offered by the Inquiry Committee. When the Executive Council was vested with the discretion to accept or not to accept the report of the Inquiry Committee and its recommendations/suggestions and in its discretion, the Executive Council had decided to act upon the recommendations/suggestions made by the Inquiry Committee, it was the bounden duty of the Executive Council to assign reason for its acceptance of the recommendations/suggestions made by the Inquiry Committee. No reason was, however, assigned at all by the Executive Council for accepting the report of the Inquiry Committee and its recommendations/suggestions for re-advertisement of the post. The Executive Council also acted far beyond its jurisdiction in taking the decision to re-advertise the post, in question, for, no such power stood vested in the Executive Council and what they could have been done, as already indicated hereinabove, was to state the reasons for their inability to accept the recommendations of the Selection Committee and submit, for final orders, their case with the reason assigned, to the Visitor, i.e., the President of India. The unilateral decision, therefore, of the Executive Council to re-advertise the post was per se beyond their power and wholly illegal. This apart, the resolution, adopted as placed on record, in this regard, does not give any indication as to why the Selection Committee's recomme­ndations were not accepted by the Executive Council and what had been found by the Inquiry Committee, which made the Executive Council take the view that the recommen­dations of the Selection Committee shall not be acted upon and the posts, in question, shall be advertised. 9. What crystallizes from the above discussion is that the resolution, adopted by the Executive Council, on 24.04.2010, as regard the recommendation of the Selection Committee was not only contrary to the provisions contained in that behalf, but was also beyond their powers. Situated thus, it becomes clear that the impugned resolution cannot be allowed to stand good on record and must be interfered with. 10. In the result and for the reasons discussed above, this writ petition succeeds. Situated thus, it becomes clear that the impugned resolution cannot be allowed to stand good on record and must be interfered with. 10. In the result and for the reasons discussed above, this writ petition succeeds. While the impugned resolution, dated 24.04.2010, is hereby, to the extent that the same relates to the selection and appointment of the Lecturers/Assistant Professor in the department of Sanskrit, is hereby set aside and quashed and the recommendations made by the Selection Committee as regard to the posts of Lecturers/Assistant Professor, in the department of Sanskrit, are hereby directed to be re-examined and re-considered, in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from today bearing in mind the provisions contained in Section 18 of the Tripura University Act, 2006, and in the light of the discussion held above. In accordance with the decision, which may be reached, by the Executive Council, the respondent University shall take such further action as may be permissible in law. 11. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.