JUDGMENT : The post of Vice-Chancellor of Andhra University, the 2nd respondent herein, fell vacant on expiry of the term of the previous incumbent. As required under the A.P. Universities Act (for short 'the Act'), the Government of A.P., the 1st respondent, issued G.O.Rt.No.847, Department of Higher Education (UE.I), dated 30-10-2012, constituting a Search Committee, comprising of respondents 5, 6 and one, Mr.S.K. Joshi, Former Director General of CSIR, as nominee of University Grants Commission. 2. The petitioner is a Professor in Department of Commerce and Management Studies of the 2nd respondent University. He submitted applications for being considered for appointment to the post of Vice-Chancellor of Nalgonda University, Kakatiya University and Adikavi Nannayya University, in the recent past. It is stated that the petitioner was not selected. He challenges the G.O.Rt.No.847, dated 30-10-2012, by raising several grounds. He contends that the 5th respondent in his capacity as Principal Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, acted as Vice-Chancellor of the University, after the term of the previous Vice-Chancellor expired, and thereby, he cannot be included in the Search Committee. He further submits that the Act provides for the inclusion of a nominee of Executive Council of the University and at present, the Executive Council is not in its complete shape. According to him, just few ex-officio members are functioning as the Council, and nomination of the 6th respondent by the Council cannot be sustained. He has raised other grounds also. 3. The 1st respondent, who is also shown with his name, as 5th respondent, filed a detailed counter-affidavit. He submits that the Search Committee was constituted strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act and Rules and that no illegality has crept in. He contends that mere functioning of the Principal Secretary as In-charge Vice-Chancellor, as a stop gap arrangement, does not lead to any disqualification. According to him, not only for the 2nd respondent-University, but also for various Universities, whenever the term of Vice-Chancellor expires, the Principal Secretary acts as In-charge Vice-Chancellor, lest there exists any vacuum, as regards the functioning of the University. 4. Regarding the Constitution of the Executive Council, the 1st respondent submits that the quorum provided for under Section 18 of the Act exists now, and that the termination of Class-II members of the Council does not disable it from functioning. 4. Regarding the Constitution of the Executive Council, the 1st respondent submits that the quorum provided for under Section 18 of the Act exists now, and that the termination of Class-II members of the Council does not disable it from functioning. It is stated that W.P.No.26897 of 2011 filed on similar grounds was dismissed by this Court. 5. The 1st respondent stated that the post of Vice-Chancellor is an important one and it is only the persons, who have distinguished academic background and good reputation can be selected and appointed. He filed a copy of a report dated 23-08-2012 submitted by Justice B.V. Ranga Raju, retired Judge of the High Court, who inquired into the allegations made against the petitioner. 6. Heard Sri Sriram, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.G. Krishna Murthy, learned Additional Advocate General for the State, for respondents 1 and 5. 7. In the recent past, the terms of Vice-Chancellors of quite a good number of Universities in the State expired, and steps were initiated to fill the vacancies. The Act prescribes the procedure to be followed in this context. A search Committee is to be constituted comprising of the nominee of the Executive Council of the concerned University, nominee of U.G.C., and nominee of the State Government. The petitioner made applications for the post of Vice-Chancellor for three Universities, viz., Kakatiya, Nalgonda and Adikavi Nannayya Universities. However, he was not selected. The 1st respondent issued G.O.Rt.No.847 dated 30-10-2012, constituting a Search Committee to select the Vice-Chancellor for the 2nd respondent University. The objection raised by the petitioner is to the nominee of the Executive Council and the nominee of the State Government. As regards the first, he states that the Executive Council is not full in its constitution and unless all the vacancies in the Council are filled up, there cannot be effective nomination. This very aspect was the subject-matter of W.P.No.26897 of 2011. A Division Bench of this Court refused to stall the process of appointment of Vice-Chancellors, even while directing that steps should be taken to constitute the Executive Council within a stipulated time. A different view cannot be taken in this writ petition. 8. One of the members of the Search Committee must be nominee of the State Government. By and large, it is the Principal Secretary, who is nominated. The 5th respondent happens to be the Principal Secretary. A different view cannot be taken in this writ petition. 8. One of the members of the Search Committee must be nominee of the State Government. By and large, it is the Principal Secretary, who is nominated. The 5th respondent happens to be the Principal Secretary. The mere fact that he acted as In-charge Vice-Chancellor for some time, does not disqualify him. It is only when specific allegations of mala fide with reference to any instances of his functioning as Vice-Chancellor are made and proved, that this Court would consider the feasibility of disqualifying him from being a member. No such allegations are made. 9. Even if there exists any defect in the constitution of the committee, this Court finds it difficult to interfere in the matter at the instance of the petitioner. The reason is that the petitioner faced an enquiry into the allegations made by a Research Scholar under his supervisor-ship. The allegation was that the petitioner harassed her sexually, abused her, asked her to come to his private apartment and stay up to 11:00 p.m., and that the video recording of his misbehaviour was done. The University appointed a Former Judge of this Court to inquire into the allegations. In his report, dated 23-08-2012, the learned Judge held that the charge framed against the petitioner is proved and he is guilty of misconduct. As long as this report remains, the petitioner cannot be treated as a person with prudent conduct. The office of the Vice-Chancellor is a respectable position and the person holding it must not only be an accomplished academician, but also must command respect through his personal conduct. A Professor, who was found to have resorted to serious acts of misconduct against a woman research scholar, cannot be conferred the honour of stalling the process of selection of the Vice-Chancellor. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. The miscellaneous petition filed in this writ petition shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.