ORDER 1. The petitioner before this Court, who is a businessman and who was earlier a member of the Executive Council of Rajiv Ghandhi Technical University Bhopal as well as Pratap Singh University, Rewa has filed this present petition being aggrieved by the action of the Chancellor in issuing an order dated 16.2.2016 by which the Chancellor has nominated respondent No.4 Dr. Ashutosh Mishra, Dean, Faculty of Science to continue and perform the duties of the post of Vice Chancellor. 2. The facts of the case reveal that on 10.8.2015, a vacancy for the post of Kulpati arose on account of resignation of Professor D.P. Singh, Vice Chancellor of Devi Ahilya Vishwavidyalaya, Indore and respondent No.4 Dr. Ashutosh Mishra was appointed as acting Kulapati until the appointment of a regular Kulapati. The advertisement was issued inviting applications for the post of Vice Chancellor on 27.8.2015 and the present petitioner also was proposed by the Executive Council, to be a member of selection committee. A committee was constituted, in light of section 13 of the Madhya Pradesh Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973 and the petitioner being aggrieved by the constitution of the committee has approached this Court. This Court by an order dated 9.2.2016 has set aside the committee constituted in the matter. 3. It is pertinent to note that while proceedings were going on before this Court, the selection committee met in Delhi, selected the person and the exercise of issuing an appointment order was to be performed. However, this Court vide order dated 9.2.2016 has quashed the constitution of the committee and therefore, the entire exercise has to be redone again by the respondents for constituting a committee. It requires time and the University can not be left without a Vice Chancellor. 4. It is pertinent to note that after the order was passed by this Court on 9.2.2016 in Writ Petition No.8780/2015, the process of constituting a fresh committee has already been started and very soon the committee is likely to be constituted and recommendations are to be made for an appointment of the post of Vice Chancellor. 5. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 16.2.2016 by which the Honble Governor who is a Chancellor of the University in exercise of powers conferred under section 14 (6) has nominated respondent No.4 to carry out day to day activities for the post of Vice Chancellor. 5. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 16.2.2016 by which the Honble Governor who is a Chancellor of the University in exercise of powers conferred under section 14 (6) has nominated respondent No.4 to carry out day to day activities for the post of Vice Chancellor. Section 14(6) reads as under :- “In the event of the occurrence of any vacancy including a temporary vacancy in the office of the Kulapati by reason of his death, resignation, leave, illness or otherwise, the Rector and if no Rector has been appointed or if the Rector is not available, the Dean of any faculty or the senior most Professor of University teaching department nominated by the Kuladhipati for that purpose shall act as the Kulapati until the date on which the Kulapati appointed under sub-section(1) or sub-section(7) of section 13 enters or re-enters as, the case may be upon his office; Provided that the arrangement contemplated in this sub section shall not continue for a period of more than six months.” 6. It is true that section 14(6) provides for a period of six months, in case an appointment order has been issued, however, the appointment order dated 16.2.2016 makes it clear that it is a fresh appointment order directing Shri Ashutosh Mishra to take charge of the post of Vice Chancellor. 7. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, in the considered opinion of this Court, the Hon'ble Chancellor was justified in issuing the order dated 16.2.2016. 7. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, in the considered opinion of this Court, the Hon'ble Chancellor was justified in issuing the order dated 16.2.2016. The Order reads as under:- vkns'k fnukad 16 Qjojh] 2016 Ø- % ,Q&1&3@11@jk-l-@;w-,-&1@244 % e/;izns'k fo'ofo|ky; vf/kfu;e] 1973 ¼dzekad 22 lu~ 1973½ dh /kkjk 14 dh mi/kkjk ¼6½ ds izko/kkukarxZr vkns'k Øekad ,Q&1&3@11@jk-l-@;w-,-&1@954 fnukad 13-08-15 }kjk MkW- vk'kqrks"k feJk] ladk;kè;{k] foKku ladk;] nsoh vfgY;k fo'ofo|ky;] bUnkSj dks fo'ofo|ky; ds u;s dqyifr dh fu;qfDr gksus rd dqyifr ds in dk dk;Z laikfnr djus ds fy, uke&funsZf'kr fd;k x;k FkkA 2- pwafd vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 13 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds varxZr mDr fo'ofo|ky; ds dqyifr dh fu;qfDr dh izfØ;k vHkh iw.kZ ugha gqbZ gS vkSj pwafd vf/kfu;e dh èkkjk 14 dh mi/kkjk ¼6½ esa of.kZr N% ekg dh dkykof/k fnukad 16-2-2016 dks lekIr gks jgh gS] vr% mDr /kkjk 14 dh mi/kkjk ¼6½ esa iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, eSa] jke ujs'k ;kno] dqykf/kifr] nsoh vfgY;k fo'ofo|ky;] bUnkSj ,rn~}kjk MkW- vk'kqrks"k feJk] ladk;k/;{k] foKku ladk;] nsoh vfgY;k fo'ofo|ky;] bUnkSj dks fnukad 17-2-2016 ls vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 13 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds varxZr u;s dqyifr dh fu;qfDr gksus rd dqyifr ds in dk dk;Z laikfnr djus ds fy;s uke&funsZf'kr djrk gw¡A ¼jke ujs'k ;kno½ dqykf/kifr] nsoh vfgY;k fo'ofo|ky;] bUnkSj ¼e-iz-½ 8. In the considered opinion of this Court as the University cannot be left without a Vice Chancellor, there are number of executive, administrative works to be done on day to day basis, permissions are required for conducting examination and as the examinations are going on, the Chancellor was justified in passing the order dated 16.2.2016. 9. The other important aspect of the case is that the petitioner now has not applied for the post of Vice Chancellor in light of the subsequent notification issued by the University. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed the aforesaid fact and has fairly stated before this Court that he is not a candidate in respect of the post of Vice Chancellor. 10. In the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioner is not a candidate for the post of Vice Chancellor and certainly does not have Locus standi in the present petition. 11. The admission is declined.