ivil Appeal No 2948 of 1984 275 From the Judgment and Order dated 2011984 of the Delhi High Court in LPA No 145 of 1982
G Ramaswami Additional Solicitor General SC Dhanda CS Vaidyanathan P Chowdhary and SR Sethia for the Appellant
Respondent No 1 In person Girish Chandra Ms Sushma Relan and P Chowdhary for Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by PATHAK CJ
This is an appeal by special leave against a judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi in a Letters Patent Appeal upholding the judgment of a Single Judge of the High Court in a writ petition filed by the first respondent for a declaration that he continues to be in the service of the Jawaharlal Nehru University
The sets forth as the objects of the Jawaharlal Nehru University to dissemi nate and advance knowledge wisdom and understanding by teaching and research and by the example and influence of corporate life and in particular the objects set out in the first Schedule
 The powers of the University extend to establishing within the Union Territory of Delhi or outside that territory such Special Centres as may be necessary for the furtherance of its objects to create such teaching administrative and other posts as the University may deem necessary and to make arrangements thereto and to appoint or recognise persons as Professors Readers or Lecturers or otherwise as teachers of the University
Section 7b of the Act declares that where the University establishes and maintains any institution or body outside the Union Territo ry of Delhi then the powers and jurisdiction of the Univer sity will extend to such institution or body subject to the rules and regulations of the University within whose juris diction the institution or body is situate
On 21 September 1970 the Additional Secretary Ministry of Education and Youth Services wrote to the Vice Chancellor of the University informing him of the intention of the Government of India to establish a Central University at Shillong to serve the needs of the North Eastern Region of India and that in August 1969 the University Grants Commission had approved the proposal of the Manipur Adminis tration to have a Post graduate Centre at Imphal under the auspices of the Gauhati University and considering the fact that the 276 proposed Central University for the Hill Areas was also intended to cater to the needs of Manipur it would be appropriate he said that the Jawaharlal Nehru University should establish a Centre at Imphal also which could later be made over to the proposed new University to be estab lished by the Centre
On 3 October 1970 a resolution was passed by the Executive Council of the Jawaharlal Nehru University agreeing with the proposal of the Ministry of Education to set up an Institute of Post graduate Studies at Imphal
A committee was set up to study the problems con nected with the setting up of such an Institute and to submit concrete proposals in that regard
On 12 June 197 1 the Executive Council of the University recorded their agreement in principle to the proposal of the Ministry of Education to set up an Institute of Post graduate Studies at Imphal and noted that the committee had submitted its re port
Then on 12 June 197 1 the Executive Council passed a resolution that a Centre of Post graduate Studies be set up at Imphal under section 52 of the 
On 27 January 197 1 the appellant University informed the respondent that he had been selected for the post of Research Assistant in the Department of South Eastern Stud ies School of International Studies of the University that the appointment would be temporary for a period of six months and his services could be terminated on one month s notice on either side
On 25 April 1973 the term of tempo rary appointment as Research Assistant in the School of International Studies was extended by the appellant Univer sity for a further period of six months with effect from 4 June 1973
Thereafter by letter dated 29 November 1973 the Vice Chancellor of the appellant University offered the respondent the post of Associate Fellow in the Post graduate Studies Centre of the University at Imphal for a period of one year in the first instance the appointment being made on ad hoc basis and his regular appointment at the Centre of the Post graduate Studies at Imphal or at the New Delhi campus of the University would be subject to the recommenda tions of the Selection Committee
It was stated that he was expected to take part in the teaching and research pro grammes of the University
He was directed in case he accepted the offer to join the Post graduate Centre Imphal Manipur as early as possible
On the same date the re spondent accepted the offer of appointment as Associate Fellow Centre of Post graduate Studies Imphal under the terms and conditions of the Vice Chancellor s letter of that date
On 3 December
1973 the respondent reiterated his acceptance of the offer of appointment as Associate Fellow at the Centre of Post graduate Studies Imphal and stated that he was reporting for duty to the Head of the Centre for Political Studies School 277 of Social Sciences New Delhi with effect from 3 December 1973 so that after necessary briefing at the Centre he would proceed to Imphal as early as possible
Thereafter by Office Order No 2376 dated 24 August 1974 the term of appointment of the respondent as Associate Fellow at the Centre of Post graduate Studies Imphal was extended for a period of one year from 3 December 1974 to 2 December 1975
By Office Order No 2440 dated 23 September 1974 the respond ent s term of appointment in the same capacity at the said Centre was now enlarged from 3 December 1974 to 2 December 1976
His existing scale of Rs400 40 800 50 950 was revised to Rs700 40 1100 50 1600 by Office Order No 295 dated 21 June 1975 with effect from 1 January 1973
It appears that the temporary appointment of Associate Professor in Politi cal Science at the Centre of Post graduate Studies Imphal was extended upto 3 August 1987 or until the post was filled on a regular basis whichever is earlier
Thereafter on 23 December 1977 an advertisement was issued by the Jawaharlal Nehru University Centre of Post graduate Stud ies Imphal Manipur for appointment to inter alia the posts of Associate ProfessorFellow and Assistant ProfessorAssistant Fellow in the Political Science
The respondent applied for the post of Associate Professor but the Selection Committee did not find him suitable for that post and recommended him for the lower post of Assistant Professor
By letter dated 29 April 1978 the Jawaharlal Nehru University offered him the appointment of Assistant Professor in Political Science on an ad hoc basis in the Centre of Post graduate Studies Imphal for a period of one year or until his services were required by the Centre whichever was earlier
The respondent however wrote back on 2 May 1978 stating that he had not applied for the post of Assistant Professor in Political Science and that he deserved to be appointed as Associate Professor at the Imphal Centre
By letter dated 21 March 1979 the Jawaharlal Nehru University offered the respondent the post of Assist ant Professor in the Political Science Division at the Centre of Post graduate Studies of the University at Imphal for a period of two years
He was informed that in all matters relating to leave and other conditions of service he would be required to enter into an agreement with the Centre of Post graduate Studies Imphal
This agreement was never executed
On 29 August 1979 the respondent joined as As sistant Professor in accordance with the terms mentioned in the University s letter dated 21 March 1979
Thereafter the respondent was appointed as Assistant Professor by a Resolu tion of the Jawaharlal Nehru University dated 29 October 1979 on a regular basis with effect from the date of his initial appointment dated 29 August 1979 and he was con firmed with effect from that date
278 In 1980 proceedings were taken to transfer the Imphal Centre from the Jawaharlal Nehru University to the Manipur University
To effectuate this the Syndicate of the Manipur University passed a Resolution on 19 December 1980 detail ing the terms for the transfer of the Centre to the Manipur University and the Manipur University and the Manipur Government requested the Jawaharlal Nehru University for transferring the Centre accordingly
The Jawaharlal Nehru University by its Resolution dated 3 February 1981 accepted the proposal and authorised the Vice Chancellor to transfer the Centre to the Manipur University
The date for transfer was fixed as 1 April 1981
Meanwhile the Manipur Legisla ture passed the Manipur University Act 1980 which was assented to by the Governor on 28 May 1980
Section 14 of the Act provided that on and from the date on which the Act came into force in respect of post graduate education and research the Jawaharlal Nehru University would cease to exercise jurisdiction over the Centre of Post graduate Studies in Imphal and that the State Government of Manipur may make provision for the transfer of employees from the Jawaharlal Nehru University Centre of Post graduate Stud ies Imphal to the Manipur University
Thereafter an order dated 31 March 1981 was made by the Governor of Manipur providing that the members of the faculties of the Jawahar lal Nehru University Centre of Post graduate Studies Imphal immediately before its merger into the Manipur University would on and from the 1 April 1981 become members of the staff of the Manipur University on the same terms and conditions of service as they were entitled to immediately before that day
Meanwhile on 3 February 1981 the Syndicate of the Jawaharlal Nehru University provided for the transfer of the Centre to the Manipur University
It was resolved that the said Jawaharlal Nehru University for Post graduate Studies would cease to exist as such and the Divisions of the Centre would become the Divisions of the Manipur University and function accordingly
It was further resolved that the members of the faculty employed by the Jawaharlal Nehru University Centre of Postgraduate Studies Imphal immediately before its merger into the University would on and from that date
become members of the staff of the Manipur University
The respondent filed a writ petition in this Court on 27 March 1981 challenging his transfer from the Jawaharlal Nehru University to the Manipur University and that peti tion was dismissed as withdrawn on 21 September 198 1
Thereafter the respondent filed a writ petition on 22 May 1982 in the Delhi High Court praying for the quashing of the Resolution of the Jawaharlal Nehru University on 3 February 198 1 transferring his services to the Manipur University
The learned 279 Single Judge of the High Court held that the respondent could not be obliged to join the Manipur University that he was confirmed as Assistant Professor in the employment of the Jawaharlal Nehru University in its Imphal Centre and was entitled to continue in service until he attained the age of 60 years and that the services had not been specifically terminated
Accordingly the writ petition was allowed and the respondent was deemed to continue in the service of the Jawaharlal Nehru University and if no equivalent post was available for him in 1981 in the Jawaharlal Nehru University had he had become surplus the said University was at liber ty to dispense with his services
In appeal the Division Bench of the High Court upheld the view that the services of the respondent could not stand automatically transferred from the Jawaharlal Nehru University to the Manipur Univer sity with effect from 1 April 1981 by operation of law and that the order dated 31 March 1981 transferring the employ ees at the Imphal Centre to the Manipur must be considered as implying or assuming that the concerned employee had exercised an option to join the Manipur University
The learned Judges also rejected the contention of the appellant that there was an automatic termination of the respondent s service without notice or order or discharge or dismissal
They held further that the Centre at Imphal was commenced and conducted as part and parcel of the Jawaharlal Nehru University that the respondent must be regarded as an em ployee continuing with the Jawaharlal Nehru University even upon the transfer of the Centre from that University
They further observed that if in the result the strength of the staff should be surplus the principle of last come first go had to be applied and that the application of the principle was to be effected with reference to the cadre to which the respondent belonged and also to the discipline in which he was competent
In the event of it being found that he constitutes a class by himself his services could be absorbed in some suitable post in the Jawaharlal Nehru University
In this appeal the main contention of the appellant is that the respondent was appointed at the Centre of Post graduate Studies Imphal and when the Centre was trans ferred to the Manipur University his services were automat ically transferred to that University and consequently he could not claim to be an employee of the appellant Universi ty
The argument proceeds on the assumption that the Centre of Post graduate Studies at Imphal was an independent entity which existed by itself and was not a department of the appellant University
The submission proceeds on a fallacy
The Centre of Postgraduate Studies was set up at Imphal as an activity of the appellant University
To give expression to that activity the appellant University set up and orga nised the Centre at Imphal and appointed a teaching 280 and administrative staff to man it
Since the Centre repre sented an activity of the appellant University the teaching and administrative staff must be understood as employees of the appellant University
In the case of the respondent there can be no doubt whatever that he was and continues to be an employee of the appellant University
There is also no doubt that his employment could not be transferred by the appellant University to the Manipur University without his consent notwithstanding any statutory provision to that effect whether in the Manipur University Act or elsewhere
The contract of service entered into by the respondent was a contract with the appellant University and no law can con vert that contract into a contract between the respondent and the Manipur University without simultaneously making it either expressly or by necessary implication subject to the respondent s consent
When the Manipur University Act pro vides for the transfer of the services of the staff working at the Centre of Postgraduate Studies Imphal to employment in the Manipur University it must be construed as a provi sion enabling such transfer of employment but only on the assumption that the employee concerned is a consenting party to such transfer
It makes no difference that the respondent was not shown in the list of Assistant Professors of the appellant University or that the provision was not indicated in its budget that must be regarded as proceeding from an erroneous conception of the status of the respondent
The position in law in clear that no employee can be trans ferred without his consent from one employer to another
The consent may be express or implied
We do not find it necessary to refer to any case law in support of this con clusion
Inasmuch as the transfer of the Centre of Post graduate Studies from the appellant University to the Manipur univer sity could not result in a transfer of the employment of the respondent from the one to the other it must be concluded that the respondent continues in the employment of the appellant University
The transfer of the Centre of Post graduate Studies to the Manipur University may be regarded as resulting in the abolition of post held by the respondent in the appellant University
In that event if the post held by the respondent is regarded as one of a number of posts in a group the principle last come first go will apply and someone junior to the respondent must go
If the post held by him constitutes a class by itself it is possible to say that he is surplus to the requirements of the appellant University and is liable to be retrenched
But it appears that the respondent has been adjusted against a suitable post in the appellant University and has been working there without break during the pendency of this 281 litigation and we cannot therefore permit the appellant University to retrench him
In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs
RSS Appeal dis missed


Summary:
The petitioner was detained under an order passed by the detaining authority under Section 31 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act 1985 with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order
The detaining authority reached his subjective satisfaction on the grounds i that the detenu was a bootlegger  within the meaning of Section 2b of the Act because he was indulging in criminal and anti social activities by illegally storing and selling foreign liquor and beer and that four cases were registered against him under the Bombay Prohibition Act 1949 ii that he was also a dangerous person  within the meaning of section 2c of the Act because he as a member of a partic ular gang was spreading an atmosphere of fear and terror by beating innocent people in the Ahmedabad city thus affecting the public order adversely and a case was also registered against him under Section 120B 212 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 and Section 25 of the Arms Act besides under the provisions of various other Acts
The petitioner filed a writ petition in this Court challenging the validity of the detention order contending that the conclusions drawn by 183 the detaining authority were not supported by materials
Quashing the detention order and allowing the Writ Petition HELD 1 To bring a person within the definition of Section 2c of the Act it must be shown that the person either by himself or as a member of or a leader of a gang habitually commits or attempts to commit or abets the com mission of offences punishable under Chapter XVI or XVII or XXII of the Indian Penal Code or any of the offences punish able under Chapter V of the Arms Act
It must be shown that he is habitually committing or attempting to commit or abetting the commission of offences enumerated therein
187 H 188B 11 In the instant case the detenu is said to have committed offences under Sections 307 120 B 212 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of the Arms Act besides under the provisions of various other Acts
Only one case registered under the provisions of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of the Arms Act fails within the said definition clause
The other two offences registered under Sections 120 B and 212 are not covered under Section 2c
Therefore this solitary incident would hardly be sufficient to conclude that the detenu was habitually com mitting or attempting to commit or abetting the commission of offences
The general and vague allegations made in the grounds of detention that the detenu was taking active part in communal riots and entered into conspiracy to spread an atmosphere of terror being a member of a particular gang in the absence of any specific instance or registration of any case thereof cannot be construed as offences falling under any of the above three chapters of the Indian Penal Code or chapter V of the Arms Act enumerated under Section 2c so as to characterise the detenu as a dangerous person 
188A E 2
A conjoint reading of Section 2b and Section 34 with the explanation annexed thereto clearly spells out that in order to clamp an order of detention upon a bootlegger  under Section 3 of the Act the detaining authority must not only be satisfied that the person is a bootlegger  within the meaning of section 2b but also that the activities of the said bootlegger affect adversely or likely to affect adversely the maintenance of public order
188H 189A 21 In the instant case the vague allegations in the grounds of detention that the detenu is the main member of a particular gang indulging in bootlegging activities and that he is taking active part in such dangerous activities are not sufficient for holding that his 184 activities affected adversely or were likely to affect adversely the maintenance of public order in compliance with sub Section 4 of the Section 3 of the Act that the activi ties of the detenu have caused harm dangeror alarm or a feeling of insecurity among the general public or any Sec tion thereof or a grave or widespread danger to life property or public health as per the explanation to Section 34
The offences registered in the
four cases under the Bombay Prohibition Act 1949 against the detenu on the ground that he was dealing in liquor have no bearing on the question of maintenance of public order in the absence of any other material that those activities of the detenu have adversely affected the maintenance of public order
189A D Ashok Kumar vs Delhi Administration and Piyush Kantilal Mehta vs The Commissioner of Police Ahmedabad City and Anr Judgments Today 1988 4 703 applied