Judgment

SEN, J. :- This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order of the Patna High Court dated November 28, 1984 quashing an order of the Vice-Chancellor, L. N. Mithila University, Darbhanga dated February 28, 1984 transferring the respondent Dayannad Jha by virtue of his powers under S. 10(14) of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 (Act for short) from the post of Principal, V. S. J. College, Rajnagar to the post of Redder in R. K. College, Madhubani. The High Court has however reserved liberty to the University to transfer the respondent to any other college maintained by it.

2. The issue involved in the appeal is as to the power of the Vice-Chancellor of a University under S. 10(14) of the Act to transfer any teacher of any department or college maintained by the University from the post of Principal of a constituent college to the post of a Reader of another constitutent college maintained by it. The High Court while allowing the Writ Petition held that although the two posts of Principal and Reader are carried on the same scale of pay, it could not be said that the post of a Reader is an equivalent post as that of the Principal in the legal sense. In coming to that conclusion, it placed emphasis on the difference in status and position of the Principal apart from the privileges that he enjoys which, according to the High Court, give him an edge over the teaching posts in an institution.

3. For a proper appreciation of the point involved, it is necessary to refer to some of the provisions of the Act which have undergone several changes. The term Principal as defined in S. 2(m) of the Act means the head of the college, while the term Reader as defined in S. 2(r) means a teacher of a college or the university possessing such qualifications as may be prescribed.

4. The Bihar State Universities (Amendment) Act, 1982 by S. 10(ga) introduced a new sub-s. (14) to S. 10 for the conferral of the power of transfer on the Vice-Chancellor, and it reads as follows :

"10(14). The Vice-Chancellor shall have the power to transfer any teacher of any department or college maintained by the University to any equivalent post in any other department or college maintained by that University in accordance with the guidelines approved by the Chancellor."

The Amendment Act also introduced a new Cl. (ba) in S. 2 defining the term teacher and a new Cl. (ka, chh) defining the expression other equivalent post which are in these terms :

"(ba). Teacher includes Principal, University Professor, College Professor, Reader, Lecturer, Demonstrator and also any other person engaged in teaching in any department or college or institution maintained by the University."

"(ka, chh) Other equivalent post means any other post having identical scale of pay or which may be declared equivalent by the State Government."

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has, in substance, advanced a two-fold contention, namely :(1) Both the posts of Principal and Reader are in the same grade and also carry the same pay and therefore the Vice-Chancellor had ample power to transfer the respondent from the post of Principal to that of a Reader. It is urged that the words any equivalent post in S. 10(14) must bear the same meaning in which the expression other equivalent post has been defined in S. 2(ka, chh) . And (2) The High Court was in error in introducing the concept of reduction in rank in view of the artificial definition of other equivalent post which makes the scale of pay determinative as to whether the two posts are equivalent or not. Upon this basis, it is submitted that difference in status and responsibility are not really germane in determining the extent of the power of the Vice-Chancellor under S. 10(14) of the Act.

6. In reply, learned counsel for the respondent seeks to draw a distinction between the words any equivalent post as used in S. 10(14) and the expression other equivalent post defined in S. 2(ka, chh), and accordingly contends that the