Judgment S.B.Sanyal, J. 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of Annexure 9, an order passed on 16.4.1988 by the Vice Chancellor, Lalit Narain Mithila University, Darbhanga (respondent No. 2) in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 79-A of the Bihar State Universities (Third Amendment) Ordinance, 1986, as amended up-to-date, transferring respondent, No. 4 the Principal of H. S. College, Uda Kishunganj, as the Principal of D. B. College, Jainagar, and Annexure 12, by which Annexure 9 has been recalled, except in case the respondent No. 4 and two others, without recalling the order of transfer of the petitioner from the post of Principal, D. B. College, Jainagar, to the post of Reader in Urdu Department, R, K. College, Madhubani. In short, the prayer is that the transfer of the petitioner from the post of Principal, D. B. College, Jainagar, to the post of Reader in Urdu Department of R. K. College, Madhubani, and the transfer of respondent No. 4 as Principal, D. B. College, Jainagar, at the instance of the Vice Chancellor, is not in accordance with law or is vitiated by several vices alleged in the writ petition, including mala fide. 2. Facts.-The petitioner was appointed sometime in the year 1956 as a Lecturer on temporary basis in R. K. College, Madhubani, which was subsequently regularised by the Governing Body of the College in the year 1957 (Annexure-2) and was duly confirmed on completion of one! year service in the year 1958 (Annexure-3). In June, 1983 the petitioner was transferred by the University and posted as Principal of D. B. College, Jainagar, to which post he joined on the same date (Annexure 5 and 5/1), On 2nd November, 1987, the Chancellor, in exercise of the powers conferred on him under Section 9 (7) of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976, as amended up-to-date, was pleased to transfer at the request of respondent No. 4, from Mithila University to Bihar University along with a few others, who made similar request, to go from one University to the other (Annexure 23). On 15-2-1988, the Secretary to the then Vice Chancellor of Mithila University, sent five copies of a book known as Mirza Ghalib Aur Hind Mughal Jamalia" of which the Vice Chancellor himself was the author, published by Masoom Publications, Srinagar, to the Principal for being purchased for the College Library at the cost of Rs. On 15-2-1988, the Secretary to the then Vice Chancellor of Mithila University, sent five copies of a book known as Mirza Ghalib Aur Hind Mughal Jamalia" of which the Vice Chancellor himself was the author, published by Masoom Publications, Srinagar, to the Principal for being purchased for the College Library at the cost of Rs. 1,000 per book and to pay the cost of the books cash through the bearer of the letter, one Md. Islam, said to be the body-guard of the Vice Chancellor. It has been averred in paragraph 10 of the petition that the petitioner wanted to make the payment through cheque or Bank draft only after deducting 10 per cent discount, to which the College Library is entitled to and the bill was therefore, passed after deducting 10 per cent of the value to which college libraries are ordinarily entitled to (Annexure 6). It has been further averred in paragraph 10 of the petition that this infuriated the Vice Chancellor, and as a consequence, by notification dated 24-3-1988 (Annexure 7), the petitioner being described as professor-in-charge, D. B. College, Jainagar, was transferred to Bahari College, Darbhanga, as Professor-in-charge/ On 16-4-1988, respondent No. 4, who was at Uda-Kishunganj, was transferred in place of the petitioner at D. B. College, Jainagar. On 17-4-1988, there was another notification, modifying the order of transfer of the petitioner (Annexure 7) by transferring him as Reader in Urdu Department of R. K. College, Madhubani. On 20-4-19S8, the Chancellor issued a wireless direction (Annexure 10), after careful consideration of various representations filed before him, staying transfers/appointments/deputations/terminations of service by the Vice Chancellor of Mithila University during the last two months and persons, staff etc. were directed to be placed at their original positions till complete inquiry was made. It was further directed that such orders of abovementioned nature are not to be passed in future. On 24-4-1988 (vide Annexure 11), the Vice Chancellor withdrew his order of transfer dated 24-3-1988 (Annexure 7). 3. The petitioner moved this Court an 12-5-1988 challenging his order of transfer in the instant writ petition, and on 27-5-1988, the petition! was admitted and the operation of Annexures 9 and 12 was stayed, without staying the proceeding before the Chancellor. On 24-4-1988 (vide Annexure 11), the Vice Chancellor withdrew his order of transfer dated 24-3-1988 (Annexure 7). 3. The petitioner moved this Court an 12-5-1988 challenging his order of transfer in the instant writ petition, and on 27-5-1988, the petition! was admitted and the operation of Annexures 9 and 12 was stayed, without staying the proceeding before the Chancellor. On 7-6-1988 pursuant to the order of stay passed by this Court, the University restored status quo ante by allowing the petitioner to join his previous post of Principal, D. B. College, Jainagar, and respondent No. 4 was asked to report to his previous) post at Uda-Kishunganj as Principal of H. S. College. There was a further direction that the Bank accounts of D. B. College, Jainagar, will, however, be operated by the Finance Officer of the University (Annexure 14). In the month of July 1988, the Chancellor withdraw his order of stay dated 20-4-1988 (Annexure 10). Two document have been annexed in this regard as to what transpired before the Chancellor, one has been marked as Annexure 15 and the other as Annexure 16. There appears to be some variation in their contents. Annexures 15 and 16 read as hereunder : Annexure 15 The Vice Chancellor, L. N. Mithila University as directed met me on 31-5-1988 and explained general background and circumstances under which the concerned transfers were made and other decisions taken by him. 2. Shri Arun Pathak, Addl. Chief Secretary and Shri R. S. Tiwari, Education Secretary besides the Advocate-General, Bihar, were also present. On consideration of the facts explained by the Vice Chancellor and opinion expressed by the officers present and the Advocate General, certain directives have been given by me to the Vice Chancellor. 3. In that view the stay order communicated by this Secretariat Teleprinter Message No. 1109, dated 20th April, 1988, is withdrawn. Annexure 16 The Vice Chancellor, L. N. Mithila University as, directed met me on 31-5-1988 and explained general background and circumstances under which the concerned transfers were made and other decisions taken by him. Shri Arun Pathak, Addl. Chief Secretary and Shri R. S. Tiwari, Education Secretary besides the Advocate General, Bihar were also present. On consideration of the facts explained by the Vice Chancellor and opinion expressed by the officers present and the Advocate General, certain directives have been given by me to the Vice Chancellor. Shri Arun Pathak, Addl. Chief Secretary and Shri R. S. Tiwari, Education Secretary besides the Advocate General, Bihar were also present. On consideration of the facts explained by the Vice Chancellor and opinion expressed by the officers present and the Advocate General, certain directives have been given by me to the Vice Chancellor. In that view the stay order communicated by this Secretariat Teleprinter Message No. 1105 dated 20th April, 1988 is withdrawn. But the Vice Chancellor has been found lacking in particular wisdom. Hence, the directives given to him be complied with. Any violation of such directives will be viewed unfavourably. Let this order be communicated. Annexure 16 has been communicated by the Deputy Secretary to the Governor of Bihar, whereas Annexure 15 appears to be an extract of the Chancellors order, and is dated 30-6-1988. But the substance of the contents is that the Vice Chancellor was given some directives and he was asked to follow the directives, and not to violate the same. The directives, however, have not been communicated in the aforesaid two documents. It is said that the directives were oral. There appears to be given a mass transfer of teachers on 27-7-1988 and, therefore, the Chancellor again sent order of stay of the transfers till further orders by communication dated 5-8-1988 to the Vice Chancellor of Mithila University and the Principal and Professor-in-charge of all colleges. It appears that, thereafter, the Vice Chancellor has been removed by the Chancellor. This, in short, is the fact of the case. 4. Dr. Jha appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the transfer of the petitioner from the post of Principal of D. B. College, Jainagar, to the post of Reader of R. K. College, Madhubani, has been made because he earned the wrath of the Vice Chancellor by not paying the entire sum of Rs. 5,000 for the purchases of his books, of which he is the author, but by deducting 10 per cent discount to which the Library of the college is entitled. Further, he was not inclined to pay the money in cash which was demanded by the bearer of the letter (Annexure 6). 5,000 for the purchases of his books, of which he is the author, but by deducting 10 per cent discount to which the Library of the college is entitled. Further, he was not inclined to pay the money in cash which was demanded by the bearer of the letter (Annexure 6). He further submitted that the Vice Chancellor used to act eratically and therefore, his orders stayed from time to time by the Chancellor, insomuch so that even after the meeting of 3-6-1988, transfers were made by the Vice Chancellor, which had to be stayed by the Chancellor. Dr. Jha also submitted that the Chancellor is the statutory head of the University and has been conferred with statutory powers under Section 9 of the Act. By amendment of the Act, he has been further empowered under Section 9(7) of the Act to transfer the officers and teachers from one University to the other on the same post or in other equivalent post. He is also empowered to issue direction in the administrative and academic interest of the University, and when such direction is issued, the Vice Chancellor, the Syndicate, and Senate must implement the direction. He is also empowered to review and re-consider orders and directions as he may deem fit and proper. In the instant case, there appears to be oral direction of the Chancellor, which the Vice Chancellor was to implement and obey, but it is not known as to what directions were actually given while withdrawing the earlier order of transfer, which resulted in Vice Chancellor making exception to the case of the petitioner and respondent No. 4. 5. Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh appearing on behalf of respondent No. 4 submitted that there was an oral direction to the Vice Chancellor for not disturbing the transfer order passed with respect to the petitioner and respondent No. 4, and in obedience to the said direction, the Vice Chancellor while recalling his order of transfer with respect to others, did not do so in the case of the petitioner and the respondent No. 4. He further submitted that the allegation of mala fide laid against the then Vice Chancellor must not be entertained in absence of the ex-Vice Chancellor being made a party by name. He further submitted that the allegation of mala fide laid against the then Vice Chancellor must not be entertained in absence of the ex-Vice Chancellor being made a party by name. Learned counsel submitted that the order of transfer, so far as the petitioner and respondent No. 4 is concerned, does not call for any interference by this Court since the same was made in the administrative exigency and for excellence of education. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we do not wan¬ to express our opinion one way or the other on the action taken by the ex-Vice Chancellor because of the course we are going to adopt. Today pursuant to the stay order passed by this Court, both the petitioner and the respondent No. 4 have been brought back to their original place of posting. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, this position may be allowed to continue, whereas according to the learned counsel for the respondent No. 4, the transfer order passed by the ex-Vice Chancellor should be given effect to. 7. This Court is not aware as to what were the oral directives given by the Chancellor and the Vice Chancellor either failed to carry out such directives or acted in consonance with the said directives. Facts, however,, disclose that subsequent order of transfer made by the Vice Chancellor was stayed by the Chancellor and ultimately the Vice Chancellor has tot quit. We are at a loss while exercising our writ jurisdiction as to what were the oral directives of the Chancellor. The question, therefore, arises whether the statutory authority while exercising statutory power could at all give oral directives, particularly when his orders are amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Apart from the difficulties with which we are faced in this writ petition in conjuring the oral directives of the Chancellor, the law does not permit a statutory authority while exercising statutory power to exercise such power by giving oral directives. There is always a chance of oath against oath, and the Court in such a situation may accept one or the other version. This may not be always in favour of the Chancellor. There is always a chance of oath against oath, and the Court in such a situation may accept one or the other version. This may not be always in favour of the Chancellor. In order to avoid such a situation, the Chancellor while exercising his statutory powers under the provision of Section 9 of the Act must render written orders and directions, particularly when the law requires such directions to be implemented and obeyed by the Vice Chancellor, Syndicate, Senate and other bodies of the University, as the case may be. These directions and orders are statutory and quasi judicial and the law of judicial review mandates the person exercising such power to do so only in writing. This is in-built procedure for exercise of such powers conferred by the statute. The Court presumes when Parliament or Legislature grants power, it intends them to be exercised in right and proper manner. There is always a duty of procedural fairness even when there is no statute nor contract upon which to base it. In the case of Siemens Engineering V/s. The Union of India -- , it was held where an authority makes an order in exercise of its quasi judicial function, it must record reasons in support of the order it makes and must observe in its proper spirit and mere pretence of compliance with it would not satisfy the requirement of law. The essence of the text of a judicial or quasi judicial function is that an authority acts in a judicial] capacity when, after investigation and deliberations, it makes a decision or performs an act that is binding and conclusive and imposes obligation upon or affects the right of an individual. Section 9(7) (ii) of the Act obligates that when such a direction is issued by the Chancellor, which is required to be implemented by all or any authority or body connected with the University, such an order or direction has to be rendered in writing, and not otherwise. 8. In the instant case, we are of the opinion that as the Chancellor was at one or the other time seized with the matter, this matter should go back to him for consideration whether the order of transfer made by the ex-Vice Chancellor with respect to the petitioner and respondent No. 4 should be maintained or they should be restored to their original position. In short, whether the arrangement restored to in Annexure 14 should continue. To this none of the lawyers expressed any objection. On the contrary, they preferred the matter to be remitted to the Chancellor for his own consideration, 9. In the result, the writ petition is allowed with the observation aforesaid and the matter is referred back to the Chancellor for decision in, accordance with law. There will be no order as to costs. R.N.Lal, J. 10 I agree.