JUDGEMENT Navaniti Prasad Singh, J. 1. By this Writ Application the Petitioner has challenged firstly the Order of the Vice Chancellor of Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University by which his designation as Principal has been changed to Principalin-charge, which later again was confirmed as Principal but with effect from 2008 though the Petitioner was appointed as Principal in 1976 and continued to act as such upto date. The second challenge is to the Order dated, 17th September, 1994 by which the Vice Chancellor has cancelled the degrees, as awarded by the said University, to the Petitioner over 20 years back. 2. The facts are long drawn with serious allegation across the board. In my view, it is not necessary to go into this question for the present. 3. Petitioner having done Intermediate in Science, took admission to pursue B.Sc. degree from Lalit Narain Mithila University. While doing so, he felt interested in taking graduate degree and pursue his study in Sanskrit as well. This had a pre-condition for a student from non Sanskrit curriculum who wanted to join Sanskrit curriculum. He had to pass eligibility examination as Uttar Madhyama Aandhit. While pursuing B.Sc, he sat for the said eligibility Sanskrit examination and passed. He thus became entitled to pursue Sanskrit curriculum academic as well. He then gave his B.Sc. examination from Lalit Narain Mithila University and passed. Almost simultaneously he appeared for examinations under Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University for the course of Navin Shastri and passed. Navin Shastri is equivalent to graduation. Having passed Navin Shastri as well as B.Sc, Petitioner abandoned non Sanskrit curriculum qualification and became interested in Sanskrit curriculum. He accordingly then sat for Navin Acharya Examination of Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University. In this examination he came first class first. This examination is equivalent to post graduate degree, i.e., M.A. 4. Thereafter, pursuant to an advertisement issued by the Governing Body of Vidya Nand Mithila Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya, Sanakat Mochan Dham, Darbhanga, he applied for the post of Principal and was duly selected by the Governing Body as Principal. Governing body then sent the name of the Petitioner to the University for approval as Principal. Thereafter, pursuant to an advertisement issued by the Governing Body of Vidya Nand Mithila Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya, Sanakat Mochan Dham, Darbhanga, he applied for the post of Principal and was duly selected by the Governing Body as Principal. Governing body then sent the name of the Petitioner to the University for approval as Principal. As would be evident from Annexure 5, the University through the Vice Chancellor by its letter dated, 9th November, 1977 approved the appointment of the Petitioner as Principal with effect from 1st July, 1976.There is no "ifs and buts" in the said letter of the Vice Chancellor/ University. The Petitioner being further interested in academics then undertook with the permission of the University to sit in further examination and obtained three further post graduate degrees equivalent to M.A., in some of which he came first class first. Thus, the Petitioners academic qualification in Sanskrit curriculum was equivalent to B.A. degree and four Post Graduate M.A. degrees. Petitioner then undertook Doctorate Research and the same University, i.e., Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University ultimately awarded him Ph.D. 5. Having seen such high academic qualification, in a short span of time, all from the same University and having became Principal of an affiliated college of the same University dragged the Petitioner into controversy as well. Without going into the question of right or wrong only to complete sequence of event, the Governing Body took decision to dismiss four employees. University insisted payment of their salary. The Governing Body refused and University paid the salary. When University tried to coerce the Governing Body into taking them back, the College approached this Court and Universitys actions were stayed. The matter was again aggravated when further three employees were dismissed by the Governing Body of the College. This was again not liked by the University and gave rise to another controversy. Again the matter came to this Court and this Court restrained the University. 6. Let it be noted that Principal is an ex-officio member of the Governing Body. Thus, started a head on conflict between the University Authority headed by the Vice Chancellor and the Principal of the College, which is an affiliated College. Umpteen number of litigations inter party ensued, contempt applications were filed, restrained Orders by the Court. The relation between the Principal and the Vice Chancellor went from bad to worse. The college teaching environment also suffered. Umpteen number of litigations inter party ensued, contempt applications were filed, restrained Orders by the Court. The relation between the Principal and the Vice Chancellor went from bad to worse. The college teaching environment also suffered. The Chancellors office was also drawn into controversy but for a short time there seemed to be a lull in the matter and parties agreed to compromise for the sake of maintaining academic standard. Compromise petition was duly signed. Petitioner and the Governing Body withdrew several writ applications and contempt applications they had filed in the hope that other side would also act accordingly. For some time, it did. Apparently all parties had reconciled but one Writ Petition filed by four dismissed employees remained pending being CWJC No. 10153 of 1989 wherein the four employees, who were not being taken back maintained their action though some of them were parties to the compromise itself. This Court left the matter to the University Authority and directed them to resolve the controversy observing thus: we hope that for the sake of clean administration in the College, controversy raised by the Petitioners should be resolved as early as possible. The resolution of the controversy raised by the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 4 vice versa, in our opinion, would bring a peaceful situation so that the administration of the college runs smoothly. 7. Thus, seen the primary purpose for which this Court remitted the case was to settle the controversy and bring peace in the University for the purposes of administration of the College. In the meantime, the Vice chancellor had taken up the matter of Principalship and by his Order, as contained in Annexure 15, being dated, 12th January, 1990 held that the Petitioner was wrongly being designated as Principal because the approval of University Service Commission was not taken to his appointment. At this stage I may note that once Governing Body pursuant to advertisement selected the Petitioner for being appointed as Principal, they had sent his name to the University for approval. At this stage I may note that once Governing Body pursuant to advertisement selected the Petitioner for being appointed as Principal, they had sent his name to the University for approval. The University was required to send the matter to the University Service Commission instead the University through the same Vice Chancellor approved the appointment of the Petitioner as Principal as far back as in 1977 and since 1977 to 1989 though the Principal remained the same person and the Vice Chancellor remained the same, no one disputed the position but when dispute arose, the Vice Chancellor put the entire blame on the Petitioner as if it was the job of the Petitioner to get his appointment approved as Principal from University Service Commission. On the contrary, it was the responsibility of the University to seek approval of the University Service Commission before according its approval. The fact remains that the University itself had specifically accorded approval to the appointment by Annexure 5 and now after 22 years the same Vice Chancellor finds fault with the action taken 22 years back and designated the Petitioner as "Acting Principal". This matter would have become academic because now in the year 2008 consequent to approval granted by the University Service Commission, Petitioner has been accepted as a regular Principal but the question remains as to the effect of his being termed as Acting principal for several years. In my view, the Petitioner had the necessary qualification for being made a regular Principal in the year 1976 when he was so made. He functioned as a regular Principal all along up to 1989 when on technical ground he was held to be Acting Principal and now once again he has been confirmed as Principal and all this without a break. Thus, in my view for all practical purposes he would be deemed to be the Principal from the date of his original appointment and would be deemed to be continuing as such for intent and purpose. 8. Now we come to another interesting matter of this murky litigation. As noted f above, the relationship between the Petitioner and the Vice Chancellor had got soured. Notwithstanding compromise entered into between the various parties, still someone had an axe to grind. Taking advantage of the High Court Order, as quoted above, an Enquiry Committee of three persons was set up. As noted f above, the relationship between the Petitioner and the Vice Chancellor had got soured. Notwithstanding compromise entered into between the various parties, still someone had an axe to grind. Taking advantage of the High Court Order, as quoted above, an Enquiry Committee of three persons was set up. This was only to enquire into the academic qualification as obtained by the Petitioner almost two decades back. The finding of the Enquiry Committee was adverse to the Petitioner and was approved by the Vice Chancellor on 17th September, 1994 and subsequently approved by the Chancellor. This is also impugned in the present writ application. The Order, in effect, is that the Petitioner had appeared in 1974 in Uttar Madhyama Andhit examination of the Kameshar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University, which as noticed earlier, is the eligibility examination to enter Sanskrit curriculum. It was found that at the same time Petitioner was pursing B.Sc from Lalit Narain Mithila University. Thus, it was found that he could not undertake two examinations from two different Universities at the same time. He was thus on this technical ground, after two decades, held to be invalidly permitted to take Sanskrit eligibility examination. In 1994, thus, on this technical ground the Committee held that all degrees i.e. Shastri and Acharya degree fall to the ground. Thus, it is found that on pure legal technical ground distinct from academic standard, Petitioners academic achievement is sought to be withdrawn and that too after almost a decade and half. The question is whether at this stage this could be done or not. In my view, even if it could be done, it was not proper for the University to do it as such specially when Petitioner had shown academic brilliance by twice topping the University at Post Graduate level. I say so because firstly right from the time Petitioner took his eligibility examination for Sanskrit curriculum upto his four degrees equivalent to M.A. and Ph.D., all were from the same University and at no point of time much less earliest point of time was he told that his entrance or eligibility test was irregular. Another reason for this finding of the Court is that the first examination being held to be irregular was only an entry step to enter a formal channel of Sanskrit curriculum. Another reason for this finding of the Court is that the first examination being held to be irregular was only an entry step to enter a formal channel of Sanskrit curriculum. Having entered and successfully completed Shastri and Acharya courses followed by Ph.D., now it is too late in the day to say that Petitioner had irregularly sat for being. eligibility/entrance examination. Petitioner had not concealed any fact in that examination. It is not in dispute that one did not have to be a regular student of Sanskrit curriculum institution, for the simple reason because this eligibility examination is only for non Sanskrit curriculum student. It pre supposes that he had not attended a formal Sanskrit curriculum school. Thus, now punishing the Petitioner on this hyper technicality after two decades when he had already established his academic achievement would not only be unfair but would be arbitrary as well. In this connection I can only refer to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers Limited v. deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and Ors. since reported in AIR 1992 SC 152 wherein their Lordships have quoted with affirmation what Lord Denning stated about technicality and technical plea, which is thus: Appellant is now told, "We are sorry. We should have given you the permission. But now that the period is over, nothing can be done". The answer to this is in the words of Lord Denning: "Now I know that a public Authority cannot be estopped from doing its public duty, but I do think it can be estopped from relying on a technicality and this is a technicality. 23. Francis Bennion in his statutory Interpretation, (1984 edn.) says at page 683: Unnecessary technicality: Modern Courts seek to cut down technicalities attendant upon a statutory procedure where these cannot be shown to be necessary to the fulfillment of the purposes of the legislation. 9. Thus, I am unable to sustain the Order of the Vice Chancellor or for that matter the Chancellor in cancelling the degree, as obtained by the Petitioner. 10. Before closing I may notice a very peculiar aspect of the matter, which shows that all these adverse steps, which were taken as against the Petitioner were actually an outcome of malice. Thus, I am unable to sustain the Order of the Vice Chancellor or for that matter the Chancellor in cancelling the degree, as obtained by the Petitioner. 10. Before closing I may notice a very peculiar aspect of the matter, which shows that all these adverse steps, which were taken as against the Petitioner were actually an outcome of malice. As noticed above, all academic qualifications of the Petitioner, as granted by the Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University stood cancelled which included Shastri (B.A.) and Acharya (M.A.) in four different subjects and Ph.D. and were all withdrawn in 1994, yet once again Petitioners name was sent to the University Service Commission to obtain concurrence for appointment of Petitioner as Principal and the University Service Commission has concurred and Petitioner has now been regularized as Principal by the very same University even though it had taken hyper technical view of the matter that the Petitioner is not a graduate what to talk of post graduate. But now this does not make difference as I have already held that cancellation of all academic qualifications is not sustainable, the Petitioner continues to enjoy his academic achievement. 11. The Writ Petition is allowed in terms as under noted: (i) Petitioner would for all purposes be deemed to be a regularly appointed Principal with effect from 1st July, 1976, as was originally approved by the university, and (ii) all academic qualifications that Petitioner had acquired from Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University over the years would be valid for all purposes.