authority with power to issue oral order would have serious repercussion on the rights of the parties. An order unless it is made, and it is made known and if it is allowed to have impact on the destiny of others it would be clearly arbitrary and illegal. Therefore when the Chancellor takes a decision, it can only be by an order. No doubt, we are not too happy with the way the matter has been done. The entire litigation for the most part is based on the alleged absence of an order. While brevity in making the order might be a virtue, the substance of the matter, at least should be self evident from the decision in the order. The matter should not be allowed to be decided on the basis of conjecture leaving superior courts to undertake the task of ascertaining whether there is an order with reference to the context and other materials. In this case, no doubt, we have done that exercise and we have come to a conclusion that there is an order. But all this could have been avoided if the Chancellor had taken greater care to couch his decision with greater clarity and at least in a few words clearly indicating his decision to withdraw the nomination of the appellant. But there is an order in this case. In this connection we must again remind ourselves that when the exercise of power is made under section 18(3), there is no question of deciding any lis. There is no question of notice to the nominated member. The only substantial constraint is that the power cannot be exercised arbitrarily, capriciously, or for mala fide reasons. There must also be a reason for withdrawal of the nomination. A member of the senate is nominated and entrusted with a task under the Act and that task is to perform various functions of the senate. The senate is an important body of the University. Under section 18(3) of the Act, a member of the senate is vouchsafed with a term of four years. While it may not be like the term of an employee, nonetheless there is a statutory assurance that if the power of Pleasure is not exercised against him, a nominated member can continue. The nominated member works as a member of the team to achieve the objectives set forth for the senate. Disruption of his career as a member of the senate without any cause is certainly not in public interest. But that is not to say the court is going to sit in judgment over the reasons. The court is not concerned with the sufficiency of reasons. It is one thing to say that the court will interfere if certain contingency exists and another thing to blur the limits of
