Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, VIRENDER SINGH, JJ.
Dr. Richa Salwan – Petitioner
Versus
Dr. Yashwant Singh Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry – Respondent
C.W.P. No. 7205 of 2022
Decided On : 06-12-2022
Employment and Service Matter - Posts of Assistant Professor - Contract basis - Respondent-University advertised various posts of Assistant Professor in year and petitioner was appointed as Assistant Professor (Microbiology) and thereafter posted in College of Horticulture and Forestry, Neri, District Hamirpur initially on contract basis and after completion of requisite period, her services were regularized - On other hand, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are working with respondent-University on contract basis and appointed as such in year - Respondent No. 2 after her appointment was posted in Government College of Horticulture and Forestry, District Mandi, against a vacant post - But, fact of matter is that respondent No. 2 worked at Thunag only for four months and thereafter vide order dated was sent on deputation in department of Basic Sciences in University main campus at Nauni - Here also, it needs to be noticed that even though this deputation was only for two months, however, she continued serving at Nauni - Whereas, respondent No. 3, who too was appointed on contract basis in the year 2021 was posted in department of Basic Sciences at Nauni, Solan - Whether the order of transfer passed is bona-fide or not - It is more than settled that the basic principle of rule of law and good administration, that even administrative actions should be just and proper - An order of transfer is to satisfy test of Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution otherwise same will be treated as arbitrary. Judicial review of order of transfer is permissible when order is made on irrelevant considerations. Para 14
Finding of Court :
Respondent-University has gone out of way to accommodate respondent No. 2 and eventually ended up in discriminating petitioner by posting her at Thunag for extraneous consideration or else there had been no reason why respondent No. 2 was called back shortly within four months of her appointment to main campus that too only for a period of two months, as is evident from order dated - Even though transfer/ deputation was cancelled vide order dated, yet respondent No. 2 was deputed in Basic Sciences (Main Campus) initially for a period of six months vide order dated which again was thereafter extended for another period of six months - What thereafter necessitated transfer of petitioner against respondent No. 2, whose appointment was for Thunag and then to transfer petitioner to Thunag, is not forthcoming - Entire exercise undertaken by respondent No. 1 was to accommodate respondent No. 2 out of way and thereby discriminating petitioner which smacks not only of an arbitrariness, but also mala-fides in action of respondent No. 1 - Entire exercise as undertaken by respondent No. 1 in accommodating respondent No. 2 is based on extraneous consideration and has been done with a mala-fide intention.
Result : Petition allowed
JUDGMENT :
TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, J.
1. The instant petition has been filed for grant of the following substantive relief:
“That appropriate writ, order or direction may very kindly be issued and impugned order (Annexure P-3) dated 11.10.2022 may very kindly be quashed and set aside, with further directions to the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue serving in the College of Horticulture and Forestry, Neri, District Hamirpur, in the interest of law and justice.”
2. The respondent-University advertised various posts of Assistant Professor in the year 2018 and the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Professor (Microbiology) and thereafter posted in the College of Horticulture and Forestry, Neri, District Hamirpur initially on contract basis on 05.11.2018 and after completion of the requisite period, her services were regularized from 01.01.2022.
3. On the other hand, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are working with the respondent-University on contract basis and appointed as such in the year 2021. Respondent No. 2 after her appointment was posted in Government College of Horticulture and Forestry, Thunag, District Mandi, against a vacant post. But, the fact of the matter is that respondent No. 2 worked at Thunag only for four months and thereafter vide order dated 01.01.2022 was sent on deputation in the department of Basic Sciences in the University main campus at Nauni. Here also, it needs to be noticed that even though this deputation was only for two months, however, she continued serving at Nauni. Whereas, respondent No. 3, who too was appointed on contract basis in the year 2021 was posted in the department of Basic Sciences at Nauni, Solan.
4. According to the petitioner, it was simply in order to accommodate both respondent Nos. 2 and 3, respondent-University issued an order dated 11.10.2022 whereby respondent No. 2, who had been working without any post in the main campus at Nauni and her salary was being drawn from College of Horticulture and Forestry, Thunag, has now actually been retained at the main campus at Nauni, whereas, respondent No. 3 has conveniently been adjusted at College of Horticulture and Forestry, Neri, District Hamirpur.
5. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the order of transfer has neither been passed in administrative exigency nor in public interest, but simply, in order to accommodate respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and the same is nothing but an act of favourtism in favour of respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
6. None has appeared on behalf of private respondents despite service.
7. As regards respondent-University, it has sought to justify its action by claiming that as per terms and conditions of appointment order and regularization orders of the petitioner issued from time to time, she is liable to be posted anywhere in the territorial jurisdiction of the University and has, therefore, rightly been transferred to the College of Horticulture and Forestry, Thunag, District Mandi, H.P. The respondent-University has further relied upon the provisions contained in statute 3.1(2)(iv) which reads as under:
“to transfer personnel from one post to another or to transfer posts from one scheme to another in the interest of the University without adversely affecting the service conditions and S. No. 3 of the schedule of delegation of administrative powers approved by the Board of Management.”
8. As regards respondent No. 2, the University has tried to justify its action by claiming that the posting of the said respondent to the main campus was on the ground that presently classes of B.Sc. (Horticulture) and B.Sc. (Forestry) are running in the College and there is only one course related to Microbiology being taught to the students. Whereas, besides B.Sc. (Horticulture) and B.Sc. (Forestry), full fledged courses related to Microbiology to the postgraduate students are taught in the main campus. Since, there was only one teacher to teach the said courses in the main campus, therefore, the teaching work was suffering b
SupremeToday
Point of Law : Court have no hesitation to conclude that it is only with a view to illegally accommodate respondent No. 2, who for some strange reasons happened to be a blue-eyed.
Court upheld transfer of university faculty under administrative grounds, affirming limited scope for judicial review in administrative transfer matters.
Transfer orders are valid under administrative exigency unless proven malicious or in violation of statutory provisions.
Transfer of employees is an essential condition of service governed by administrative exigencies, and courts should exercise restraint in interfering with such orders unless they are proven to be ill....
The Vice-Chancellor of the university lacks the authority to transfer employees absent explicit provisions in the governing Act, rendering the transfer order invalid.
Government servants have no vested right to remain posted at a particular place, and interference with transfer orders should be limited to cases of mala fides or violation of specific provisions.
Transfer orders are administrative actions that should not be interfered with unless shown to be mala fide or in violation of statutory provisions, with public interest being a valid justification.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
