ORDER 1. With the consent of the advocates, both these petitions are heard together. 2. CWJC No. 10569 of 2011 was filed by one Janardan Singh, a retired Professor, in public interest to challenge the continuance of ad hoc appointment of Vice-Chancellors and Pro- Vice Chancellors in the respondent Universities in the State of Bihar. According to the said writ petitioner, the continuance of ad hoc arrangement at the highest level of education is baneful and prejudicial to the interest of the students, and in particular, the Institutions at large. 3. In view of the Notifications dated 1st August 2011 and 3rd August 2011, issued by the Chancellor to make appointment of Vice-Chancellors and Pro-Vice Chancellors in the above referred Universities, the matter at issue in CWJC No. 10569 of 2011 has become academic. We do share the anxiety of the writ petitioner for betterment of education at higher level in the State of Bihar. However, with full time appointments made by the Chancellor, the matter does not call for greater attention. In our view CWJC No. 10569 of 2011 has become infructuous and requires to be disposed of as such. 4. Pending the said Writ Petition, under Notifications dated 1st August 2011 and 3rd August 2011 the Chancellor made appointments of Vice-Chancellors and Pro-Vice-Chancellors in the above referred Universities. The said writ petitioner, in Interlocutory Application No. 5524 of 2011, sought amendment with a view to challenging the said appointments of Vice-Chancellors and Pro-Vice-Chancellors in the above referred Universities. The said amendment was allowed under order dated 9th September 2011. Nevertheless; the said amendment has not been carried out in the Writ Petition. 5. CWJC No. 15123 of 2011 has been filed by one Dr. Ram Tawakya Singh in public interest and in representative capacity. We may note here that the petitioner has not disclosed whom does he represent; nor the procedure envisaged by Order I Rule 8 CPC has been followed. Petition, therefore, cannot be treated as one in the representative capacity. 6. The said petitioner claims that he is a University Professor and the Head of the Department of Chemistry in Post-Graduate Chemistry Department of Vir Kunwar Singh University, Ara. He has filed this petition in public interest because he is concerned with the education and improvement of higher education in the State of Bihar. 6. The said petitioner claims that he is a University Professor and the Head of the Department of Chemistry in Post-Graduate Chemistry Department of Vir Kunwar Singh University, Ara. He has filed this petition in public interest because he is concerned with the education and improvement of higher education in the State of Bihar. He has no personal interest in any of the impugned appointments of Vice-Chancellors or Pro-Vice Chancellors. 7. The Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution raises questions in respect of appointment of the Vice-Chancellors of Patna University, Patna; of Bhim Rao Ambedkar University, Madhepura; of Jai Prakash University, Chapra; of Bhupendra Narain Mandal Univeristy, Madhepura; of Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University, Darbhanga and of Maulana Mazharul Haque Arabic and Persian University, Patna and the appointment of Pro-Vice Chancellors of Patna University, Patna; of Bhupendra Narain Mandal University, Madhepura; of Lalit Narain Mithila University, Darbhanga and of Maulana Mazharul Haque Arabic and Persian University, Patna made by the Chancellor, His Excellency the Governor of Bihar under Notifications dated 1st August 2011 and 3rd August 2011. 8. The challenge is two-fold. It is alleged that the above referred appointments have been made in contravention of Sections 10(2) and 12 of the Bihar Universities Act, 1976 and Sections 11 & 14 of the Patna University Act, 1976. It is alleged that the Chancellor has made the above referred appointments without consultation with the State Government. It is also alleged that some of the aforesaid Vice-Chancellors and Pro-Vice Chancellors are not eligible for appointment as Vice-Chancellor / Pro-Vice Chancellor or are not fit for appointment as Vice- Chancellor / Pro-Vice Chancellor. It is alleged that Dr. Shambhu Nath Singh, Vice-Chancellor of Patna University, does not possess the requisite qualifications; Dr. P.K. Verma, Pro-Vice Chancellor of Bhupendra Narain Mandal University, is not eligible for appointment as Pro-Vice Chancellor as he has not been a Principal of a college; Dr. Arbind Kumar Pandey, Vice- Chancellor of Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University, has a criminal record; Dr. Ram Vinod Singh, Vice-Chancellor of Jai Prakash University, Chapra is over-aged for appointment as such. 9. The Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 has been enacted by the Government of Bihar with a view to establishing and to incorporating Affiliating-cum-Teaching Universities at Muzaffarpur, Bhagalpur, Ranchi, Gaya and Darbhanga in the State of Bihar. Ram Vinod Singh, Vice-Chancellor of Jai Prakash University, Chapra is over-aged for appointment as such. 9. The Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 has been enacted by the Government of Bihar with a view to establishing and to incorporating Affiliating-cum-Teaching Universities at Muzaffarpur, Bhagalpur, Ranchi, Gaya and Darbhanga in the State of Bihar. The above referred Baba Saheb Bhimrao Ambedkar Bihar University, Jai Prakash Univeristy, Lalit Narain Mithila University, Bhupenda Narain Mandal University, Kameshwawr Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University and Maulana Mazharul Haque Arabic and Persian University have been established under Section 3 of the said Act. Section 7 of the said Act provides for the offices of the Chancellor, the Vice-Chancellor and Pro-Vice-Chancellor of the Universities established under Section 3 of the said Act. Section 9 of the said Act provides, inter alia, that the Governor of Bihar shall be the Chancellor and be the Head of the said Universities and the President of the Senate of the said Universities. Section 10 of the said Act provides for appointment of the Vice-Chancellor. Sub-section (1) thereof provides for the qualifications for appointment as Vice Chancellor. Sub-section (2) thereof provides, “The Vice-Chancellor shall be appointed by the Chancellor in consultation with the State Government.” Section 12 of the said Act provides for appointment of Pro-Vice-Chancellor. Sub-section (1) thereof provides, “The Chancellor shall appoint the Pro-Vice-Chancellor, in consultation with the State Government.” 10. The Patna University Act, 1976 has been enacted by the State of Bihar “to establish and incorporate a teaching University at Patna in the State of Bihar.” Section 8 of the said Act provides, inter alia, for the offices of the Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor and Pro-Vice Chancellor. Sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the said Act provides that the Governor of Bihar shall be the Chancellor and be the Head of the University and the President of the Senate. Section 11 of the said Act provides for the eligibility for appointment as Vice-Chancellor. Sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the said Act provides that the Governor of Bihar shall be the Chancellor and be the Head of the University and the President of the Senate. Section 11 of the said Act provides for the eligibility for appointment as Vice-Chancellor. Sub-sections (1) and (2) thereof read as under: “(1) No person shall be deemed to be qualified to hold the office of the Vice-Chancellor, unless he- (i) is an educationist having experience of administering the affairs of any University of India for not less than six years, or (ii) is or has been Principal or Head of the Department of any University or College, and has a teaching experience of not less than 10 years in the University or in any other University or in any college. (2) The Vice-Chancellor shall be appointed by Chancellor, in consultation with the State Government from amongst persons having qualification as mentioned in sub-section (1) and he shall hold office during the pleasure of the Chancellor. (3) x x x x” 11. Similar provisions are made for appointment of Pro-Vice Chancellor under Section 14 of the said Act. Sub-sections (1) and (2) thereof read as under: “(1) The Chancellor shall appoint the Pro-Vice Chancellor in consultation with the State Government. (2) The Pro-Vice-Chancellor shall be a whole time officer of the University. He shall hold office for a period not exceeding three years during the pleasure of the Chancellor on such conditions as may be determined by the Chancellor in consultation with the State Government. (3) x x x x (4) x x x x (5) x x x x” 12. The bone of contention is the aforesaid requirement of consultation with the State Government. There is no gainsaying that the legislature has enjoined that no appointment of Vice-Chancellor or Pro-Vice-Chancellor shall be made without the consultation with the State Government. Necessarily, the consultation with the State Government is a condition precedent for appointment of Vice-Chancellors and Pro-Vice-Chancellors. The allegation is that the Chancellor has made the impugned appointments without consultation with the State Government. The said appointments are, therefore, illegal and void ab initio. 13. The petition is contested by the respondents the Chancellor of the Universities, by the concerned Universities and by the individual Vice-Chancellors and Pro-Vice-Chancellors whose appointments have been questioned in the present Writ Petition. The State of Bihar has supported the Writ Petition. The said appointments are, therefore, illegal and void ab initio. 13. The petition is contested by the respondents the Chancellor of the Universities, by the concerned Universities and by the individual Vice-Chancellors and Pro-Vice-Chancellors whose appointments have been questioned in the present Writ Petition. The State of Bihar has supported the Writ Petition. 14. Learned counsels appearing for the respondents have raised a preliminary objection in respect of the maintainability of the present Writ Petition in public interest. It is vehemently submitted that the writ petitioner is interested in appointment as a Vice-Chancellor of the University. He had filed CWJC No. 8141 of 2010 in the same subject matter. The petitioner being personally interested, a petition in public interest is not maintainable. We shall deal with the question of maintainability of this petition in Public Interest little later. 15. Learned counsel Mr. Y.V. Giri has appeared for the writ petitioner. He has vehemently submitted that the writ petitioner is not personally interested in being appointed as a Vice-Chancellor or a Pro-Vice-Chancellor of any University. He, therefore, has no personal interest in the cause of action. The writ petitioner, being a Professor and educationist, is concerned about the well being of Higher Education in the State of Bihar. The Offices of the Vice-Chancellor and the Pro-Vice-Chancellor are very important in respect of administration of the Universities and also for maintaining educational standards. He has submitted that unless the Vice-Chancellors and the Pro-Vice-Chancellors of the Universities are highly qualified and have been in the field of education for a long time and are of impeccable integrity, they cannot muster respect from the students; nor would they be able to instill the sense of discipline in the world of students. It is, therefore, imperative that not only the persons appointed as Vice-Chancellors or Pro-Vice-Chancellors should be qualified for such appointment according to the statutory provisions, but they should also be the persons of great reputation for their contribution in the field of education and are beyond reproach. 16. Mr. Giri has also submitted that apart from the statutory provisions contained in the Bihar Universities Act, 1976 and the Patna University Act, 1976, the Regulations made by the University Grants Commission (hereinafter referred to as “the Commission”) are also binding. 16. Mr. Giri has also submitted that apart from the statutory provisions contained in the Bihar Universities Act, 1976 and the Patna University Act, 1976, the Regulations made by the University Grants Commission (hereinafter referred to as “the Commission”) are also binding. He has submitted that the State Government is required to incorporate the provisions made by the Commission in the enactment to bring the enactment in consonance with the provisions made by the Commission. He has submitted that as late as on 30th June 2010 the Commission has framed the University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and other Measures for Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as „the UGC Regulations?). Under Regulation 7 thereof, provisions are made for selection of Vice-Chancellors and Pro-Vice-Chancellors of the Universities. A detailed procedure has been set out for selection of the Vice-Chancellors and the Pro-Vice-Chancellors in the Universities. For appointment of a Vice-Chancellor, a person is expected to be of highest level of competence, integrity, morals and institutional commitment. He should be a distinguished academician with a minimum ten years of experience as Professor in a University or ten years of experience in an equivalent position in a reputed research and / or academic administrative organization. All Universities are required to comply with the recommendations made by the Commission. The contravention thereof may entail withholding from the University the grants proposed to be made out of the funds of the Commission. 17. Mr. Giri has submitted that in making the impugned appointments, not only the Chancellor has failed to comply with the statutory mandate of prior consultation with the State Government; the Chancellor has also failed to comply with the recommendations made by the Commission. He has submitted that not only the concerned Vice-Chancellors and Pro-Vice-Chancellors fail to meet the high standards of competence, integrity, morals and institutional commitment expected by the Commission; neither they are distinguished academicians nor do they have good reputation in respect of the integrity and morals. Quite a few of them are alleged to be guilty of financial irregularities, defalcation, etc. Persons of such repute can never be appointed as Vice-Chancellor or Pro-Vice-Chancellor even in the wildest imagination. He has submitted that earlier similar appointments made by the Chancellor were set aside by this Court in the matter of Dr. Quite a few of them are alleged to be guilty of financial irregularities, defalcation, etc. Persons of such repute can never be appointed as Vice-Chancellor or Pro-Vice-Chancellor even in the wildest imagination. He has submitted that earlier similar appointments made by the Chancellor were set aside by this Court in the matter of Dr. Pramod Kumar Singh & Anr. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. [ 2011 (2) PLJR 1051 ]. The said judgment was confirmed in the matter of Subhas Prasad Sinha & Anr. Vs. Dr. Pramod Kumar Singh & Ors. [2011 (4) PLJR 328]. The judgment of this Court was upheld by the Hon?ble Supreme Court. In support of his submissions, Mr. Giri has also relied upon the judgment of the Hon?ble Supreme Court in the matters of Subhas Prasad Sinha Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. [ 2012 (1) PLJR 312 (SC)]; of Dr. Meera Massey & Ors. Vs. Dr. S.R. Mehrotra & Ors. [ (1998) 3 SCC 88 ]; of Hari Bansh Lal Vs. Sahodar Prasad Mahto & Ors. [ (2010) 9 SCC 655 ]; of Centre for PIL & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Anr. [ (2011) 4 SCC 1 ] and of this Court in the matter of Sunil Kumar Tiwary & Anr. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. [ 2009 (1) PLJR 516 ]. 18. Learned Additional Advocate General Mr. Lalit Kishore has appeared for the State Government. He has supported the Writ Petition whole-heartedly. He has submitted that in spite of the earlier decision in the matter of Dr. Pramod Kumar Singh & Anr. (Supra) upheld by the Hon?ble Supreme Court, the Chancellor has, in utter violation of the statutory provisions, made the impugned appointments of the Vice-Chancellors and Pro-Vice-Chancellors in the Universities of the State of Bihar. He has submitted that the said appointments are not made in good faith. The persons appointed as Vice-Chancellors and Pro-Vice-Chancellors are not the persons of high academic standards or of high repute. The sublime function of selection and appointment of Vice-Chancellors and Pro-Vice-Chancellors has not been performed by the Chancellor in accordance with law. He too has relied upon the above-referred judgments in the matters of Dr. Pramod Kumar Singh & Anr. and of Subhas Prasad Sinha & Anr. 19. Mr. The sublime function of selection and appointment of Vice-Chancellors and Pro-Vice-Chancellors has not been performed by the Chancellor in accordance with law. He too has relied upon the above-referred judgments in the matters of Dr. Pramod Kumar Singh & Anr. and of Subhas Prasad Sinha & Anr. 19. Mr. Lalit Kishore has submitted that the State Government has passed the Patna University (Amendment) Bill, 2011 to bring the provisions contained in the Patna University Act, 1976 in consonance with the UGC Regulations of 2010. Similarly, the State Government has passed Bihar State Universities (Amendment) Bill, 2011 to bring the provisions contained in the said Act in consonance with the UGC Regulations. However, neither of the said amendments has become operative as the same have not received the assent of His Excellency the Governor. 20. The petition is contested by the learned counsel Mr. Shashi Anugrah Narain. He has appeared for the Chancellor of the Universities. He has submitted that the Universities are the autonomous bodies and their autonomy is required to be maintained. He has relied upon the counter affidavit made by the Chancellor. He has vehemently submitted that the Chancellor has scrupulously followed the statutory provisions in making the impugned appointments. A proper consultation with the Chief Minister was also made. He has submitted that the Chancellor had personally discussed the matter with the Chief Minister. The appointments were made only after consultation with the Chief Minister. He has relied upon the UGC Regulations; particularly, the above-referred Regulation 7. He has also relied upon the judgments of the Hon?ble Supreme Court and of this Court in the matters of All Kerala Private College Teachers’ Association Vs. Nair Service Society & Ors. [ (1994) 5 SCC 479 ]; of Subhas Prasad Sinha & Anr. (Supra) and of Indian Administrative Service (S.C.S.) Association, U.P. & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. [1993 Suppl (1) SCC 730]. 21. Learned counsel Mr. Shashi Anugrah Narain has also assailed the locus standi of the writ petitioner to maintain a Public Interest Litigation in the subject matter. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the judgments in the matters of Bholanath Mukherjee & Ors. Vs. Ramkrishna Mission Vivekananda Centenary College & Ors. [ (2011) 5 SCC 464 ]; of P. Seshadri Vs. S. Mangati Gopal Reddy & Ors. [ (2011) 5 SCC 484 ]; of Girjesh Shrivastava & Ors. Vs. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the judgments in the matters of Bholanath Mukherjee & Ors. Vs. Ramkrishna Mission Vivekananda Centenary College & Ors. [ (2011) 5 SCC 464 ]; of P. Seshadri Vs. S. Mangati Gopal Reddy & Ors. [ (2011) 5 SCC 484 ]; of Girjesh Shrivastava & Ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. [ (2010) 10 SCC 707 ] and of Dr. Ashok Kumar Pandey Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. [ AIR 2004 SC 280 ]. He has also submitted that the persons appointed as Vice-Chancellors and Pro-Vice-Chancellors are reputed academicians known for their contribution in the academic field and are also the persons of high repute. 22. Learned counsel Mr. Raghib Ahsan has appeared for the respondent nos. 18, 19, 27 and 28 and has contested the Writ Petition. He has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the matter of Dipendra Nath Sarkar Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. [AIR 1962 Patna 101]. 23. Learned counsel Dr. Debal Banerjee has appeared for the respondent nos. 23 and 26. He has contested the Writ Petition. He has submitted that the Chief Minister is the head of the State Government and the factum of consultation with the Chief Minister by the Chancellor is indisputable. He has submitted that the appointments of the said respondent nos. 23 and 26 are made in consonance with Section 7 of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976. 24. Learned counsel Dr. Rajeev Dhavan has appeared for the respondent no. 24. He has assailed the Writ Petition on the grounds that the writ petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the appointment of the concerned respondents in Public Interest Litigation. It is a sheer abuse of the process of law. He has denied that the Chancellor had failed to comply with the statutory mandate of previous litigation with the State Government. He has relied upon the affidavit made by the Chancellor. He has submitted that the Chancellor did consult the Chief Minister before making selection for appointment of Vice-Chancellors and Pro-Vice-Chancellors. There is no set procedure for such consultation. All that is required is that the parties to the consultation are aware of the matters at issue and of the subject they are discussing. He has submitted that the Chancellor did consult the Chief Minister before making selection for appointment of Vice-Chancellors and Pro-Vice-Chancellors. There is no set procedure for such consultation. All that is required is that the parties to the consultation are aware of the matters at issue and of the subject they are discussing. It cannot be gainsaid that the Chancellor did consult the State Government and that the Chief Minister was aware of the subject to be discussed with the Chancellor. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the statutory provisions contained in the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976; Articles 167 and 233 of the Constitution of India and the judgments in the matters of State of Uttaranchal Vs. Balwant SinghChaufal & Ors. [ (2010) 3 SCC 402 ]; of Indian Administrative Service (S.C.S.) Association, U.P. & Ors. (Supra); of Indian Administrative Service (S.C.S.) Association, U.P. & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. [1993 Suppl (1) SCC 730]; of Ram Nagina Singh & Ors. Vs. S.V. Sohni & Ors. [AIR 1976 Patna 36] and of Chandramouleshwar Prasad Vs. The Patna High Court & Ors. [ 1969 (3) SCC 56 ]. 25. Learned counsels Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, Mr. Abhinav Srivastava, Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha and Mr. Bibhuti Prasad Pandey have appeared for the concerned respondents and have contested the Writ Petition. Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh has relied upon the judgment of the Hon?ble Supreme Court in the matter of Chandramouleshwar Prasad (Supra). 26. Learned counsel Mr. Chittaranjan Sinha has appeared for the respondent no. 29. Although, he has opposed the Writ Petition, he has admitted that investigation in respect of the three criminal cases is pending against the respondent no. 29. 27. We have considered the above referred judgments relied upon by the learned advocates on various issues. 28. At first, we shall examine the locus standi of the writ petitioner to file the present petition in Public Interest. Undoubtedly, the petitioner had challenged his non-selection or non-appointment as Vice-Chancellor of Magadh University in the above referred CWJC No. 8141 of 2010. However, in the present Writ Petition he has not lodged claim for appointment as Vice-Chancellor or Pro-Vice-Chancellor in any of the respondents Universities. Undoubtedly, the petitioner had challenged his non-selection or non-appointment as Vice-Chancellor of Magadh University in the above referred CWJC No. 8141 of 2010. However, in the present Writ Petition he has not lodged claim for appointment as Vice-Chancellor or Pro-Vice-Chancellor in any of the respondents Universities. Besides, the matter being of considerable import relating to Higher Education in the State of Bihar; we having heard the matter at length on all issues, we do not propose to throw away the Writ Petition on the ground of maintainability without addressing on merits. 29. The only issue that arises for our consideration in the present Writ Petition is whether or not there was a “consultation” by the Chancellor with the State Government in respect of selection and appointment of the respondents Vice-Chancellors and Pro-Vice-Chancellors. Neither it is disputable; nor it is disputed that a prior consultation with the State Government is a condition precedent for selection and appointment of Vice-Chancellors and Pro-Vice-Chancellors in the respondents Universities. In absence of such consultation, the selection and appointment would be rendered illegal and void ab initio. In the present case, the Chancellor has maintained that he had due consultation with the State Government in the subject matter. 30. We have no reason to doubt; nor do we doubt the genuineness of any of the statements made on oath by the Chancellor before this Court. Although no specific statement is made by the Chancellor, we do believe that the respondent Vice-Chancellors and Pro-Vice-Chancellors were appointed by the Chancellor after he was satisfied about their academic achievements and of the high standards of their integrity and morals. Nor do we question the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the Chancellor in respect of the eligibility and/or credibility of the respondents Vice-Chancellors and Pro-Vice-Chancellors appointed under the impugned Notifications dated 1st August and 3rd August 2011. In exercise of power of judicial review conferred by Article 226 of the Constitution, this Court cannot and would not sit in appeal over the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the Chancellor. 31. The only question we shall address is whether or not there was a “Consultation” with the State Government as envisaged by the relevant provisions of the Acts referred to hereinabove. 32. The requirement of previous consultation with the State Government is not a novel proposition found in the above referred statutory provisions. 31. The only question we shall address is whether or not there was a “Consultation” with the State Government as envisaged by the relevant provisions of the Acts referred to hereinabove. 32. The requirement of previous consultation with the State Government is not a novel proposition found in the above referred statutory provisions. There are many an areas where the State Government is required to consult some other authority like Public Service Commission and there are similar statutory provisions under various enactments requiring previous consultation with the State Government. The above referred Acts of 1976 are two such enactments. The scope and ambit of the term “Consultation” has been widely considered by the Hon?ble Supreme Court and by the High Courts time and again. We need not reiterate the principles laid down by the Hon?ble Supreme Court and the High Courts, but shall follow the same. 33. We do agree with Dr. Rajeev Dhavan that the judgments in the matters of Dr. Pramod Kumar Singh & Anr. (Supra) and Subhas Prasad Sinha & Anr. (Supra) have no relevance to the facts of the present case. In the said matters, the parties admitted the absence of consultation with the State Government which is not the case in the present matter. 34. There cannot be a straight-jacket formula to explain the term “Consultation”. The scope of the “Consultation” referred to in an enactment has to be determined in the context of the enactment. The facts in each case will reveal whether there was a consultation or not. The term “Consultation” primarily requires that the parties to the consultation are aware of the subject of consultation and are clear in their mind what they propose to do or to say. The above referred Acts of 1976 not only enjoin the Chancellor to consult the State Government; in our opinion, the said provisions also cast a duty upon the State Government to give its opinion on the matter under consultation. Necessarily, no opinion can be formed unless the matter is on hand and the materials are properly scrutinized. The intention of the Legislature is to make the procedure of selection of Vice-Chancellors and Pro-Vice-Chancellors fool-proof as evident from the provision for scrutiny by two highest authorities. Necessarily, no opinion can be formed unless the matter is on hand and the materials are properly scrutinized. The intention of the Legislature is to make the procedure of selection of Vice-Chancellors and Pro-Vice-Chancellors fool-proof as evident from the provision for scrutiny by two highest authorities. At first, the Chancellor obviously would scrutinize the names proposed for consideration for their academic and other credentials as required under the above referred Acts of 1976, and there would be another scrutiny by the State Government. Thus, the Legislature has cast a duty upon the State Government to scrutinize the names proposed by the Chancellor for appointment of Vice- Chancellors and Pro-Vice-Chancellors for their academic qualifications, experience, integrity and moral standards. 35. Let us examine whether does it fall from the facts on record that the State Government did perform its aforesaid duty cast by the Legislature. 36. It is evident that the Chancellor had the meeting with the Chief Minister, and that both the Chancellor and the Chief Minister were aware of the subject matter of discussion. The Chief Minister being the representative of the State Government, we cannot say that the Chancellor did not consult the State Government or that the State Government was not aware of the names selected by the Chancellor. 37. But, in our opinion, it is not enough that the State Government was aware of the subject matter. If the State Government were satisfied by mere discussion, we would say that the State Government failed in discharge of its duty or abdicated its power. 38. A proper consultation would be when the Chancellor forwards the names selected by him with the relevant materials and the State Government considers such names and scrutinizes the materials; the State Government may have or may collect further materials from its own resources and records its own opinion in respect of each such name. The matter of appointment of Vice-Chancellors or Pro-Vice-Chancellors cannot be taken lightly. It would be the duty of the Chancellor and the State Government to select the best person or at least not to select a wrong person. 39. We do not propose to enter into the eligibility, academic qualifications, general reputation, integrity or moral standards of any of the respondents Vice-Chancellors or Pro-Vice-Chancellors. It would be the duty of the Chancellor and the State Government to select the best person or at least not to select a wrong person. 39. We do not propose to enter into the eligibility, academic qualifications, general reputation, integrity or moral standards of any of the respondents Vice-Chancellors or Pro-Vice-Chancellors. It is the function of the Chancellor to examine the materials on hand and to consider the opinion of the State Government and the materials forwarded by the State Government, if any. Once, the Chancellor has examined the materials and is satisfied, that would be sufficient compliance with the statutory provisions. 40. We do not propose to say that the Chancellor is required to receive recommendations from the State Government or that the opinion of the State Government is binding upon the Chancellor. No, that is not what the Legislature has intended. All that the Legislature has intended is that the Chancellor should obtain opinion of the State Government before he makes the appointment of Vice-Chancellors or Pro-Vice-Chancellors selected by him. The opinion of the State Government may or may not be accepted by the Chancellor. The Chancellor being the supreme authority, it is the decision of the Chancellor which shall prevail, but not without obtaining the opinion of the State Government on the proposed names. 41. As recorded hereinabove, at no point of time before the Chancellor discussed the matter with the Chief Minister, the names proposed by the Chancellor were disclosed to the State Government. In absence of the disclosure of the names, the State Government could not have applied its mind or formed an opinion. A mere discussion without application of mind or forming an opinion, in our view, is not the “Consultation” envisaged by the above referred Acts of 1976. 42. For the aforesaid reasons, we hold that the appointment of the respondent nos. 20 to 29 as Vice-Chancellors or Pro-Vice-Chancellors in the concerned Universities have been made without “Consultation” as envisaged by Sections 10(2) and 12 of the Bihar Universities Act, 1976 and by Sections 11 and 14 of the Patna University Act, 1976. All the ten appointments are, therefore, vitiated and are void ab initio. 43. For the aforesaid reasons, CWJC No. 15123 of 2011is allowed. The impugned Notifications dated 1st August 2011 and 3rd August 2011 are quashed and set aside. The appointment of the respondent nos. All the ten appointments are, therefore, vitiated and are void ab initio. 43. For the aforesaid reasons, CWJC No. 15123 of 2011is allowed. The impugned Notifications dated 1st August 2011 and 3rd August 2011 are quashed and set aside. The appointment of the respondent nos. 20 to 29 is held to be illegal and contrary to the Bihar Universities Act, 1976 or the Patna University Act, 1976, as the case may be, and are set aside. 44. The Chancellor will, within one month from today, propose names for appointment of Vice-Chancellors and Pro-Vice-Chancellors in the above referred Universities to the State Government with the relevant materials. The State Government will, within 30 days therefrom, forward its opinion in respect of all such names to the Chancellor. After receipt of such opinion, the Chancellor will make the appointment of Vice-Chancellors and Pro-Vice-Chancellors in the respondents Universities. 45. We make it clear that the petitioner will have no right to submit his candidature or a right to be considered for appointment as Vice-Chancellor or Pro-Vice-Chancellor in any of the respondents Universities. 46. CWJC No. 10569 of 2011 and the Interlocutory Applications stand disposed of.