https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185241 The Chancellor's power under Section 31(8)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973, when resolving a disagreement between the Selection Committee and the Executive Council on an academic appointment, is administrative rather than quasi-judicial because the scheme contemplates no lis, hearing, or evidence-taking. Natural justice was therefore not required in the adjudicatory sense contended, although the decision remains subject to Article 14 and review for illegality, irrationality, arbitrariness, and extraneous considerations. The Court also accepted the appellant's eligibility, holding that the prescribed qualification allowed either a doctorate or published work of high standard, which the Selection Committee had accepted. The Chancellor's appointment order was upheld and the High Court's quashing was set aside. en-us Wed, 21 Mar 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 04 Aug 2016 16:59:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185241 The Chancellor's power under Section 31(8)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973, when resolving a disagreement between the Selection Committee and the Executive Council on an academic appointment, is administrative rather than quasi-judicial because the scheme contemplates no lis, hearing, or evidence-taking. Natural justice was therefore not required in the adjudicatory sense contended, although the decision remains subject to Article 14 and review for illegality, irrationality, arbitrariness, and extraneous considerations. The Court also accepted the appellant's eligibility, holding that the prescribed qualification allowed either a doctorate or published work of high standard, which the Selection Committee had accepted. The Chancellor's appointment order was upheld and the High Court's quashing was set aside. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 21 Mar 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185241