Patna High Court
Dr. Uday Kumar vs The Bra Bihar University on 4 August, 2026
Author: Harish Kumar
Bench: Harish Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16585 of 2025
======================================================
(Dr.) Uday Kumar, Son of Late Babua Nandan Singh, resident of Ward No.
11, Rahul Nagar, Town- Sultanganj, Post Office- Sultanganj, P.S.- Sultanganj,
District- Bhagalpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The BRA Bihar University, Muzaffarpur through its Registrar.
2. The Vice Chancellor, BRA Bihar University, Muzaffarpur.
3. The Registrar, BRA Bihar University, Muzaffarpur.
4. Principal, Jamuni Lal College, Hajipur (Vaishali).
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 16587 of 2025
======================================================
Santosh Kumar, Son of Ramchandra Das, Resident of Village-
Mohiuddinnapur, P.S.- Biharsharif, District- Nalanda.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The BRA Bihar University, Muzaffarpur through its Registrar.
2. The Vice Chancellor, BRA Bihar University, Muzaffarpur.
3. The Registrar, BRA Bihar University, Muzaffarpur.
4. The Principal, Jamuni Lal College, Hajipur (Vaishali).
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 16585 of 2025)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vinodanand Mishra, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Gunjan Kumar, Jha, Advocate
Ms. Sweta Kumari, Advocate
Mr. Avinash Kumar Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Ankesh Bibhu, Advocate
For the University : Mr. Mrigank Mauli, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Nikhil Kumar Agrawal, Advocate
For the College Mr. Satish Kumar Pandey, Advocate
Mr. Amandeep Prasad, Advocate
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 16587 of 2025)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vinodanand Mishra, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Gunjan Kumar, Jha, Advocate
Patna High Court CWJC No.16585 of 2025 dt.04-08-2026
2/27
Ms. Sweta Kumari, Advocate
Mr. Avinash Kumar Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Ankesh Bibhu, Advocate
For the University : Mr. Mrigank Mauli, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Nikhil Kumar Agrawal, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 04-08-2026
Heard Mr. Vinodanand Mishra, learned Senior
Advocate, duly assisted by Ms. Saumya Sinha, learned
Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Mrigank Mauli, learned
Senior Advocate with Mr. Nikhil Kumar Agrawal, learned
Advocate for Babasaheb Bhim Rao Ambedkar Bihar University,
Muzaffarpur.
2. Since both the writ petitions involve identical
issues, challenging one and the same impugned order, based on
similar grounds, the same are being heard together and disposed
of by this common order/judgment with the consent of the
parties.
3. The challenge in both the writ petitions is made
to an order, as contained in Memo No. B/2372 dated 26.09.2025
issued by the Registrar of the Babasaheb Bhim Rao Ambedkar
Bihar University, Muzaffarpur (in short 'University') whereby
the petitioner (in C.W.J.C. No. 16585 of 2025) who has been
working as an Associate Professor in the Department of
Chemistry in Jamuni Lal College, Hajipur has been transferred
Patna High Court CWJC No.16585 of 2025 dt.04-08-2026
3/27
to RPS College, Chakiyaj whereas the petitioner (in C.W.J.C.
No. 16587 of 2025), who has been working as an Assistant
Professor in the Department of History in the said Jamuni Lal
College, Hajipur has been transferred to MSM Samta College,
Jandaha. In both the cases, the consequential orders of relieving
have also been put to challenge.
4. The facts are not in dispute that both the
petitioners were duly appointed as Lecturer-Assistant Professor
in pursuance of the recommendation of the Bihar State
University (Constituent College) Service Commission as well as
Bihar Public Service Commission and subsequently they have
been transferred and posted in Jamuni Lal College, Hajipur
(Vaishali) (in short 'the College'). While they were working on
the above referred post in the College, a notice was issued under
Memo No. B/3232 dated 30.11.2024 by the University
requesting all the desirous teachers to submit their applications,
duly forwarded and recommended by the concerned Principal
along with all the supporting documents, for their transfer to
another constituent colleges. It is the specific case of the
petitioners that they never expressed their desire to be
transferred to any other constituent College either in pursuance
of this notice or even otherwise. However, to the utter surprise
Patna High Court CWJC No.16585 of 2025 dt.04-08-2026
4/27
by the impugned notification, contained in Memo No. 2372
dated 26.09.2025, the petitioners have been transferred to
different constituent Colleges and consequently the Principal of
the College has also issued the relieving letter(s) on 27.09.2025
and sent it on the Email of the petitioners, which was viewed by
the petitioners on 28.09.2025 in the afternoon.
5. It is also asserted that the aforesaid notification
dated 26.09.2025 has never been communicated or served to the
petitioners via any medium either personally or through post.
Nonetheless, the petitioners came to know about the same
through the Whats-app group of Executive Committee of Bihar
University Teachers Association.
6. Mr. Binodanand Mishra, learned Senior
Advocate for the petitioners while assailing the impugned order
has primarily contended that the same is arbitrary and mala fide
for the simple reason that the decision to transfer has been taken
in a hot haste manner. From the impugned order, it appears that
the transfer committee is said to have been constituted on
25.09.2025
and the meeting was held on 26.09.2025; and the
Vice-chancellor of the University, who is said to be the
Chairman of the Committee was pleased to transfer the services
of altogether 31 teachers, including the petitioners. The
Patna High Court CWJC No.16585 of 2025 dt.04-08-2026
5/27
impugned order of transfer is in complete disregard to the
Statute, especially Sub-Clause 3 and 6 of the Statute 39 of the
Bihar State Universities Act, 1976, which provides guidelines
for transfer with specific stipulation that transfer should not be
made if it will result in the dislocation of the teaching
programme in the College. The guidelines also provides that a
more qualified and senior teacher should be considered for
posting in relatively more important colleges from the point of
view of teaching and other facilities available in the institution.
The petitioners are presently working in the College, which is
the top ranking college at the district headquarter. On the other
hand, the College in which the petitioners have been transferred
are situated in a remote village.
7. It is further contended that the transfer
committee also does not consist of competent person in terms
with the guidelines issued by the learned Chancellor dated
06.08.2008. It appears that eight member committee has been
constituted under the Chairmanship of the Vice-chancellor of
the University and notwithstanding the stipulation laid down in
the guideline only the Dean of the concerned faculty could be
the member. The Dean of all the four faculties; Science,
Humanities, Social Science and Commerce have been made the
Patna High Court CWJC No.16585 of 2025 dt.04-08-2026
6/27
members, even in case of the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 16585
of 2025, who has only concern with Dean of Faulty of Science.
Similarly two Principal of the constituent college in order of
seniority has to be the member in the said committee, but
“junior most Principals” have been made members of the
Committee. It is further urged that seemingly vide office Order
dated 25.09.2025, the meeting of the transfer committee was
scheduled to be held on 26.09.2025 in the New Guest House of
the University, but to the utter surprise meeting was held at the
residence of the Vice-chancellor, despite any intimation to the
members about the change of the venue and time of meeting. In
the proceeding of the meeting of the transfer committee, the
name of the Principal J. L. College, Hajipur and Principal
Rameshwar College, Muzaffarpur have been inserted by hand
written, when the name of other principals, who were present,
has been typed. The resolution of the transfer committee has
been approved in a mechanical manner, though the Registrar of
the University in his counter affidavit has said that the
committee considered the request of the teachers seeking
transfer, as also the report of the Principals and the vacancy
position. However, it does not appear to be so from the
resolution of the committee. There is no explanation as to what
Patna High Court CWJC No.16585 of 2025 dt.04-08-2026
7/27
was so urgent that the meeting was conducted in such a hot
haste manner, besides there is no deliberation in the meeting,
much less on the report of the Principal and the vacancy
position in different Colleges.
8. Referring to a decision rendered by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Fuljit Kaur Vs. State of Punjab
and Others : (2010) 11 SCC 455, Mr. Mishra, learned Sr.
Advocate submitted that when a thing is done in a post-haste
manner, mala fides would be presumed. Anything done in undue
haste can also be termed as arbitrary and cannot be condoned in
law. He further argued that upon notice, the Principal of the
College has also filed counter affidavit as well as supplementary
counter affidavit with a specific allegation affecting personal
reputation; besides he has informed the University vide its
confidential report dated 13.09.2025, reiterating the conduct of
the petitioners prejudicial to the interest of the College. The
Principal of the College further alleged that the Transfer
committee not only considered the applications of desirous
teachers, but the academic performance of teachers and overall
conduct based upon which the decision to transfer has been
taken. Once the Principal of the College, who has made
complaint against the petitioners, he ought not to be part of such
Patna High Court CWJC No.16585 of 2025 dt.04-08-2026
8/27
transfer committee, as no person can be judge of his own cause.
The materials available on record clearly suggests that the order
of transfer is purely mala fide in nature. Once the petitioners are
able to prove and satisfy the Court that besides the authorities
have acted in departure of procedures, detriment to the legal
rights, the respondent, Principal of the College by his act
influenced the decision of the transfer committee and, as such,
the impugned order of transfer suffers from mala fide and as
such fit to be set aside.
9. Referring to various decisions of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, Mr. Mishra, learned Sr. Advocate further
bolstered his submission that undoubtedly the transfer is
incident of service, but if the authorities acted in contrary to the
Rules and Regulation applicable to be considered at the time of
passing the order of transfer and/or if the same is mala fide it
clearly offends under Article 14 of the Constitution of India and
fit to be set aside.
10. Placing reliance upon a Bench decision of this
Court in the case of Dr. Hira Prsad Singh Vs. The State of
Bihar & Ors (C.W.J.C. No. 15913 of 2013) it is further argued
that in any event, transfer of teachers in constituent colleges is
an exception and has to be made only in rarest of the rare cases
Patna High Court CWJC No.16585 of 2025 dt.04-08-2026
9/27
and that too not on the whims and dictate of the Vice-chancellor
but in the administrative interest to be determined by the
statutory committee set up by the learned Chancellor duly
described under letter dated 25.07.2008 and one of the
stipulation for transfer is that the junior most teachers should be
considered for transfer in the first instance of option and in case
of non-availability, then it should be as per the ascending order
of seniority. In College of the petitioners, they are the senior
most teachers and thus either option should be asked for or the
junior teachers should be considered for transfer.
11. It is lastly urged that the Hon’ble Supreme
Court time and again has cautioned the authority that if a Statute
requires a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it must
be done in that manner alone or not at all.
12. It is pertinent to take note of that during the
pendency of the writ petition by the order dated 13.10.2025, the
Court has directed to maintain status quo, qua the petitioner till
further order. However, when the petitioners have submitted
application requesting for their continuation in the College, in
question, they have not been allowed owing to the order of
relieving having been issued on 27.09.2025 itself. Aggrieved,
the petitioners have also filed interlocutory applications seeking
Patna High Court CWJC No.16585 of 2025 dt.04-08-2026
10/27
a direction from this Court to initiate a contempt proceeding
against the respondents concerned, who have acted in defiance
with the order of this Court.
13. Per contra, Mr. Mrigank Mauli, learned Senior
Advocate representing the University has submitted that by the
impugned order altogether 31 faculties have been transferred in
view of over all academic interest of the students and the
respective institutions. So far the matter of transfer is concerned,
he urged that it falls within the domain of the employer and the
Hon’ble Supreme Court through several pronouncement
cautioned that the Courts or Tribunals cannot substitute their
own decisions in the matter of transfer for that of competent
authorities of the State and even allegations of mala fides when
made, must be such as to inspire confidence in the Court or are
based on concrete materials and ought not to be entertained on
the mere making of it or on consideration borne out of
conjectures or surmises; and except for strong and convincing
reasons, no interference could ordinarily be made with an order
of transfer.
14. Despite the order of transfer having been passed
and the relieving order has been issued by the Principal of the
College, the petitioners did not join at the new place of posting
Patna High Court CWJC No.16585 of 2025 dt.04-08-2026
11/27
or comply the direction issued by the University, though the
others have submitted their joining in their respective
institutions. The transfer Committee was duly constituted in
accordance with the letter issued by the learned Chancellor and
so far the Principal of the College is concerned, he was only a
member of the committee and not as a position of complainant,
hence in any view of the matter he was not able to persuade the
committee, moreover since the meeting was with respect to the
various persons more than 50 in numbers, the plea of mala fide
is not available to the petitioners.
15. Mr. Mauli, learned Senior Advocate further
contended that since the impugned order of transfer was not
effected on account of any administrative reason or by way of
punishment, no opportunity was required to be given to the
petitioners. Reliance has also been placed on a decision
rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of
India & Ors. Vs. Bishamber Das Dogra : (2009) 13 SCC 102
and submitted that the application of doctrine of prejudice
demands it to be established by the employee that on account of
failure to perform any duty at the hands of the authorities,
prejudice has been caused to him. The interests of justice
equally demand that the guilty should be punished and that
Patna High Court CWJC No.16585 of 2025 dt.04-08-2026
12/27
technicalities and irregularities which do not occasion failure of
justice are not allowed to defeat the ends of justice. Any order
cannot be vitiated ipso facto as it would depend upon the facts
and circumstances and the employee has to establish that really
prejudice has been caused to him. Since the reason for transfer
is not based upon complaint, no need of opportunity is required
to be given.
16. The Vice-Chancellor in exercise of his lawful
administrative discretion, constituted a comprehensive Teacher
Transfer Committee vide Memo No. B/2362 dated 25.09.2025
and included all the Deans of the four faculties; Science,
Humanities, Social Science and Commerce to ensure holistic,
fair and balanced deliberation in the matter of transfer of
teachers. The guidelines of the learned Chancellor are enabling
provisions that vest discretion in the Vice-Chancellor to
constitute the committee in the manner best suited for the
interest of the institution and its affiliated colleges. Merely some
of the Principals are senior to the members of the Committee,
the same in no manner vitiate the composition of the committee.
The change of the venue and inclusion of the names of Principal
of J. L. College, Hajipur and Principal of Rameshwar College,
Muzaffarpur recorded by hand in the attendance list, as they
Patna High Court CWJC No.16585 of 2025 dt.04-08-2026
13/27
joined in the meeting at the time when the attendance record
was prepared and thus it was only an administrative
convenience. The petitioners attempt to cast doubt on the
attendance of these Principals on the basis of handwriting alone,
without any denial of the signatory, is devoid of any factual
foundation.
17. Learned Senior Advocate for the University
further argued that transfer is an incident of service and scope of
judicial review of transfer order is extremely limited and the
petitioners have failed to make out any case of mala fide,
statutory violation or lack of competence and thus in absence of
such grounds no interference can be allowed. Reliance has been
placed on a Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of
State of U. P. & Ors. Vs. Gobardhan Lal : 2004 (11) SCC 402.
18. To answer the contention of the learned Senior
Advocate for the petitioners that the authorities violated the
interim order of this Court, Mr. Mauli, learned Sr. Advocate
vehemently contended that such status quo order has been
obtained by suppressing the fact that the petitioners have
already been relieved on 27.09.2025 itself, much before the
order of this Court having been passed on 13.10.2025 directing
to maintain status quo qua the petitioners till further orders.
Patna High Court CWJC No.16585 of 2025 dt.04-08-2026
14/27
19. This Court has meticulously hear the learned
Senior Advocates for the respective parties and also perused the
relevant materials referred hereinabove. However, before
coming to examine the legality of the impugned order of
transfer, it would be pertinent to recapitulate the legal position
as highlighted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of
decisions, which would also guide the foundational issue
involved in the present lis.
20. The position with regard to the issue of transfer
of an employee, has been persistently dealt with numerous
occasion and the Court ruled that the scope of judicial
interference in an order of transfer of an employee is very
limited, it is entirely upon the competent authority to decide
when, where and at what point of time a public servant is to be
transferred from his present posting. Transfer is not only an
incident but an essential condition of service. It does not affect
the conditions of service in any manner. The employee does not
have any vested right to be posted at a particular place. (Vide B.
Varadha Rao Vs. State of Karnataka : (1986) 4 SCC 131 ;
Shilpi Bose Vs. State of Bihar : AIR 1991 SC 532; S.C.
Saxena Vs. Union of India & Ors., : (2006) 9 SCC 583, Mohd.
Masood Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., (2007) 8 SCC 150,
Patna High Court CWJC No.16585 of 2025 dt.04-08-2026
15/27
Somesh Tiwari v. Union of India & Ors., (2009) 2 SCC 592.)
21. it is true that an employee holding a transferable
post cannot claim any vested right to work at a particular place,
as the transfer order does not affect any of his legal rights and
the Court cannot interfere with a transfer/posting, which is made
in public interest or on administrative exigencies.
22. In Union of India & Ors. Vs. H.N. Kirtania,
reported in, (1989) 3 SCC 447, their Lordships of the Apex
Court held that transfer of a public servant made on
administrative grounds or in public interest should not be
interfered with unless there are strong and pressing grounds
rendering the transfer order illegal on the ground of violation of
statutory rules or on ground of mala fide.
23. In the State Bank of India Vs. Anjan Sanyal :
AIR 2001 SC 1748, the Hon’ble Supreme Court spelt out that an
order of transfer of an employee is a part of the service
conditions and such order of transfer is not required to be
interfered with lightly by a court of law in exercise of its
discretionary jurisdiction unless the court finds that either the
order is mala fide or that the service rules prohibit such transfer
or that the authorities, who issued the order, had not the
competence to pass the order.
Patna High Court CWJC No.16585 of 2025 dt.04-08-2026
16/27
24. In Shilpi Bose (supra), the Apex Court while
re-enforcing the settled legal position has also observed that
transfer orders issued by the competent authority do not violate
any of his legal rights. Even if a transfer order is passed in
violation of executive instructions or orders, the courts
ordinarily should not interfere with the order instead affected
party should approach the higher authorities in the department.
If the courts continue to interfere with day-to-day transfer orders
issued by the government and its subordinate authorities, there
will be complete chaos in the administration which would not be
conducive to public interest.
25. In the case of Govt. of A.P. Vs. G. Venkata
Ratnam : (2008) 9 SCC 345. the Hon’ble Supreme Court while
deprecating the view taken by the High Court interfering in
transfer merely on the basis of some extraordinary achievements
highlighted by the employee, has unequivocally held that it is
not for the Court to consider where respondent would be more
suited. Such an approach is rather unusual and strange as no
employee can be permitted to choose his own place of posting.
The judgment of the High Court is said to be wholly untenable
in law and observed that the High Court has not only lost the
judicial poise and restraint but also arrived at completely
Patna High Court CWJC No.16585 of 2025 dt.04-08-2026
17/27
unfounded conclusions. The transfer order could not be found as
lacking in bona fides on such fanciful pleas.
26. The transfer order may cause great hardship as
an employee would be forced to have a second establishment at
a far distant place, education of his children may be adversely
affected, may not be able to manage his affairs and to look after
his family. The aforesaid aspect was also considered in the case
of State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Vs. S.S. Kourav & Ors. :
AIR 1995 SC 1056 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court
cautioned that it is not permissible for the court to go into the
relative hardship of the employees. It is for the administration to
consider the facts of a given case and mitigate the real hardship
in the interest of good and efficient administration.
27. The issue of mala fide raised by an employee
aggrieved with the transfer order was considered in Tara
Chand Khatri Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors. :
AIR 1977 SC 567 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that
the High Court would be justified in refusing to carry on
investigation into the allegations of mala fides if necessary
particulars of the charge making out a prima facie case are not
given in the writ petition and the burden of establishing mala
fides lies very heavily on a person who alleges it and there must
Patna High Court CWJC No.16585 of 2025 dt.04-08-2026
18/27be sufficient materials to establish malus animus.
28. This Court being mindful of the line of the
decision on the issue of transfer is cautious of the position that
the scope of judicial review against the transfer order is very
limited and restricted if the transfer order is found to be in
contravention of the statutory rules or issued by an incompetent
authority or mala fide is established, and/or if it is completely
against the public interest and penal in nature.
29. It is trite that transfer is a condition of service
within the exclusive domain of the employer to determine as to
at what place and for how long the service of a particular
employee is required.
30. The fact is not in dispute that the transfer
committee was duly constituted vide Memo No. B/2362 dated
25.09.2025 in accordance with letter in the form of guidelines
issued by the learned Chancellor under Memo No. BSU-
33/2006-2600 GS(1) dated 06.08.2008, which deals with
common norms for rationalization viz-a-viz inter transfer of
University teachers. The Vice-chancellor of the Universities of
Bihar are authorized to transfer teachers within the University
under their jurisdiction considering the workload and actual
requirement of teachers in order to improve the academic
Patna High Court CWJC No.16585 of 2025 dt.04-08-2026
19/27
atmosphere of the Colleges. Such transfers will take place from
College having surplus teachers against the workload
assessment to the colleges having shortage of teachers against
their workload assessment. The aforesaid guidelines further
made it clear that the workload of the College/department shall
be taken into consideration while deciding transfer of teachers
from or to the College or the department.
31. From the record, it is also evident, and even
admitted by the petitioners, that notice was issued by the
University under Memo No. B/3232 dated 30.11.2024,
requesting all the teachers, who were desirous to be transferred
to another constituent colleges to submit their application, hence
the process of transfer had already been started with effect from
the date on which applications were invited. On receipt of the
applications of the desirous candidate, the data of the working
strength of all the teachers posted in various subjects along with
the available vacancies and the report of the academic
performance of teachers obviously were to be prepared so that
the same could be placed before the transfer committee. The
transfer committee was duly constituted vide Memo No. 2362
dated 25.09.2025 and all the available datas were placed before
the Committee and based upon which the committee has taken a
Patna High Court CWJC No.16585 of 2025 dt.04-08-2026
20/27
decision to transfer the faculties in the academic interest of the
students and the respective institutions. Since on the plain
reading of the order of transfer impugned herein it clearly
reveals that the very transfer is effected after collection of all the
datas, in the interest of the institution on academic ground,
therefore, the assertion of the petitioners that the decision of the
transfer committee has taken place in a hot haste manner does
not find merit consideration in the case.
32. Irrespective of the aforesaid fact, if this Court
accepts the another limb of argument of Mr. Binodanand
Mishra, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners for a
moment that the Principal of the College has sent a confidential
report against the petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 16585 of 2025
and, as such, the order is by way of punishment, this also does
not persuade, this Court in view of the nature and content of the
impugned order, which speaks very loud and clear that the same
has been done in the interest of the institution on academic
ground. Had the transfer been only with respect to the
petitioners, based upon the confidential report of the allegation
levelled by the Principal of the College. This Court would have
been in a position to unveil the curtain and look behind the
reason for such transfer, in view of specific stand of mala fide,
Patna High Court CWJC No.16585 of 2025 dt.04-08-2026
21/27
but the transfer order impugned herein is with respect to more
than 50 teachers only on academic ground. There may be
allegation against the petitioners or certain other persons, as also
averse or confidential report, but if this could not be a reason for
transfer or there is no whisper with respect to such report or
allegation and the circumstances also does not reveal that it is
actuated due to the aforesaid reason. This Court cannot go
behind the import of the impugned order, suspecting the same
has been passed on a punitive ground, hence the contention of
the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners that the order
impugned is passed in a hot haste manner, besides it is punitive
in nature has no force and stands rejected.
33. Now coming to the next contention raised on
behalf of the petitioners with regard to non-observance of the
guidelines in constitution of the committee, the same has been
duly answered by the respondents in their response filed through
counter affidavit as well as supplementary counter affidavit.
34. From the record, it clearly emerged that the
committee was consisting of the Deans of all the four faculties;
Science, Humanities, Social Science and Commerce in order to
ensure holistic, fair and balanced deliberation, as it was a
matter of transfer of the teachers of different faculties under
Patna High Court CWJC No.16585 of 2025 dt.04-08-2026
22/27
different subjects, hence the presence of Deans of other faculties
cannot invalidate the constitution of committee. The Principal of
the College was also part of the committee as a Scheduled
Caste/Scheduled Tribe member and not by virtue of a
complainant. The allegation of the petitioners regarding Shri
Nawal Kishore Baitha, Professor-in-charge, who was
representing the committee as a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled
Tribe member notwithstanding he was Reader or a Professor,
the same has been categorically denied by giving specific
statement that he was not the part of the transfer committee.
35. The two of the Principals, who had been the
members of the transfer committee were not admittedly senior
most Principal, but this cannot alone, in the opinion of this
Court, vitiate the composition of the committee, as the
guidelines of the constitution of the Committee talks about the
constitution of the Committee in the manner prescribed and in
case the senior most teachers were/are not available on account
of any of the reason, such position can be filled up with the
persons, who are coming next to their seniority. On account of
the aforesaid reasons, the order of such transfer would not
automatically stands vitiated unless the petitioners be able to
prove that on account of such reason, apparent prejudice has
Patna High Court CWJC No.16585 of 2025 dt.04-08-2026
23/27
been caused or the act of the respondents is suggestive of
discrimination giving impression of bias, favourtism and
nepotism. We must keep in mind that the guidelines
contemplated under letter dated 06.08.2008 contained enabling
provision for vesting discretion to the Vice-Chancellor of the
Universities to constitute transfer committee in the manner, best
suited in the interest of the institution.
36. It is well settled law that the party, who alleges
prejudice, must show that real prejudice has been caused to
him/her and that should not only be pleaded and demonstrated.
37. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State
represented by Inspector of Police Chennai Vs. N. S.
Gnaneswaran : (2013) 3 SCC 594 has clearly observed that the
petitioner must satisfy the prejudice that caused to him i.e.,
procedural departure, which caused detriment to his legal claims
or rights. It is to be observed that it is for the employees or
delinquent to demonstrate the prejudice and the same has to be
considered on its own merits in the facts and circumstances of
the cases.
38. Once, this Court has discussed in the foregoing
paragraphs that the order of transfer in no way be termed as a
mere administrative order, punitive in nature, the principle of
Patna High Court CWJC No.16585 of 2025 dt.04-08-2026
24/27
natural justice cannot be applied in its rigid form. The
applicability of the principles of natural justice has undergone a
sea-change, and a slight infraction of procedural safeguard
cannot vitiate the action of the authorities, unless it is proved
that the employee was seriously prejudiced, in absence of
complying the principles of natural justice.
39. Time and again, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
cautioned that the Courts/Tribunals should not interfere with a
transfer order, which are made in public interest and for
administrative reasons, unless the transfer order are made in
violation of mandatory statutory rules or on the ground of mala
fide. The Government Servant holding a transferable post has no
vested right to remain posted at one place or the other.
Moreover, the transfer order issued by the competent authority
do not violate any of his legal rights. The Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Shilpi Bose (supra) while reiterating the
aforesaid position has ruled that even if a transfer order is
passed in violation of executive instruction or order, the Courts
ordinarily should not interfere with the order instead affected
parties should approach the higher authorities in the department.
If the Court continues to interfere with day to day transfer
orders issued by the Government and its subordinate authorities,
Patna High Court CWJC No.16585 of 2025 dt.04-08-2026
25/27
it has rightly been held that there would be complete chaos in
the administration, which would not be a conducive to public
interest.
40. This Court at this stage also feels it significant
to refer the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case
of Gobardhan Lal (supra), where, while dealing with the issue
of mala fide, it has spelt out that the Courts or Tribunals must
not substitute their own decisions in the matter of transfer for
that of competent authorities of the State and even allegations of
mala fides when made must be such as to inspire confidence in
the Court or are based on concrete materials and ought not to be
entertained on the mere making of it or on consideration borne
out of conjectures or surmises and except for strong and
convincing reasons, no interference could ordinarily be made
with an order of transfer.
41. Since the petitioners have failed to make out a
case of mala fide in facts or law, this stand also does not find
merit consideration and accordingly stands rejected.
42. Now coming to the stand led on behalf of the
petitioners that the respondent authorities of the University have
acted in complete defiance of interim order of this Court dated
13.10.2025 directing them to maintain status quo qua the
Patna High Court CWJC No.16585 of 2025 dt.04-08-2026
26/27
petitioners, it also does not get substantiated in view of the
admission of the petitioners that consequential relieving orders
had already issued immediately after the order of transfer, on
27.09.2025 and it was duly communicated to the petitioners on
their respective email at 12 noon on 27.09.2005 itself.
Notwithstanding the position referred hereinabove, a plea has
been taken that neither the transfer order nor relieving letter has
ever been communicated to them in the manner it was provided.
Once the order of transfer itself says that the copy forwarded to
all the concerned/persons concerned and Principal of College
with a request to relieve the Assistant Professor concerned at the
earliest with intimation to the undersigned, this Court does not
find any force in the submission led on behalf of the petitioners.
The law is also well settled in this regard that once the order is
issued and sent out to the Government servant concerned, it
must be held to have been communicated to him, no matter
when he actually received it.
43. In view of the aforesaid facts and the position
obtaining in law, deliberating all the points raised by the parties,
this Court is of the opinion that the impugned orders do not
suffer from any illegality, arbitrariness and mala fide, since the
petitioners have failed to make out any case of interference.
Patna High Court CWJC No.16585 of 2025 dt.04-08-2026
27/27
Accordingly, the writ petitions sans any merit, fit to be
dismissed.
44. The petitioners are henceforth directed to
submit their joining in the respective colleges, without any
further delay within a week. However, it is made clear that since
the matter was pending consideration before this Court and
there was status quo qua the petitioners and only on account of
such reason, the petitioners did not submit their joining in the
respective colleges, the authorities shall not take any coercive
measure owing to the ground of non-submission of joining on
the transferred college.
45. Both the parties shall bear their own costs.
(Harish Kumar, J)
uday/-
AFR/NAFR AFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 05.08.2026 Transmission Date NA
