IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4911 of 2009 1. NIRPATI NARAYAN JHA SON OF LATE RAMAKANT JHA RESIDNET OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE NAGDAH, P.S. ARER, DISTRICT MADHUBANI. 2. RAJESH KUMAR SAHANI SON OF LATE RAM BILASH SAHANI RESIDNET OF VILLAGE BHANDAR CHAUK, KATALWALI, P.O. LALBAGH, P.S. VISHWAVIDYALAYA, DISTRICT DARBHANGA. 3. KAMAL NARAYAN SON OF LATE RAMDAS MAHTO RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KASNAINI, P.O. SONHAN, DISTRICT DARBHANGA. 4. VIKASH KUMAR SOJN OF LATE GANESH LAL CHAUDHARY RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BABHNI VIA DURGAGANJ, P.S. DAGARWAN, DISTRICT PURNIA 5. ASTANAND YADAV SON OF LATE RAMASHISH YADAV RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PURA, P.O. DHOI, DISTRICT DARBHANGA. 6. MD. MOKIM SON OF LATE ABDUL KARIM MOHALLA KHAJA SARAI, P.O. LAHERIASARAI, DISTRICT DARBHANGA. 7. MD. HALIM SON OF ABDUL KARIM, RESIDNET OF ALINAGAR, P.O. & P.S. ALINAGAR, DISTRICT DARBHANGA. Versus 1. L.N.MITHILA UNIVERSITY DARBHANGA THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR, KAMESHWAR NAGAR, DARBHANGA. 2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, L. N. MITHILA UNIVERSITY, 3. THE REGISTRAR, L.N. MITHILA UNIVERSITY. DARBHANGA. with CWJC No.2289 of 2011 1. PAWAN KUMAR SON OF LATE RAJESH KUMAR RESIDENT OF MOHALLA ANAND KISHORE NAGAR, LAXMI SAGAR, NAKA NO. 8, P.S. VISHWAVIDYALAYA, DISTRICT DARBHANGA. 2. DILSHER ALAM SON OF LATE CHHITIYA KHATOON RESIDENT OF MOHALLA BHAGALPURA, P.O. LALBAGH, P.S. LAHERIASARAI - 2 - 3. BHULLI DEVI WIFE OF LATE BUCHAI KAMTI, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA BHAGWAN DAS, P.O. LALBAGH, P.S. SADAR, DARBHANGA. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. 2. L.N.MITHILA UNIVERSITY DARBHANGA THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR, KAMESHWAR NAGAR, DARBHANGA. 3. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, L. N. MITHILA UNIVERSITY, 4. THE REGISTRAR, L.N. MITHILA UNIVERSITY. DARBHANGA ----------- For the Petitioners :- Mr. Navendu Kumar For the University :- Mr. Santosh Kumar Singh For the State :- Mr. Chakradhari Sharan Singh ---- 3 05/05/2011 All the petitioners of the two writ applications have a common grievance, which is the order of transfer passed against them shifting them from the University to the constituent Colleges indicated against their names by virtue of notification issued by the University, last of them being dated 11.12.2010. Basic submission on behalf of the petitioners is that in terms of the statute as well as the adjudication made by the then Chancellor, it has been categorically held that staff of the University and the staff of the constituent Colleges are two units and no transfer is permissible between one and the other. Since these - 3 - petitioners are employees of the University, they cannot be pushed down from their posting within the University to the constituent Colleges under the University. There is no categorical denial with regard to the proposition of law on behalf of the respondents. They have justification that this is being done for the administrative reasons and in the interest of the petitioners to ensure proper payment of their salary. The question is that when the Statute does not provide transfer of an University employees to a constituent College, then whatever be the circumstance, the power of transfer cannot be exercised contrary to the statute. The orders of transfer, therefore, will have to be interfered with and they stand quashed in so far as they relate to these petitioners. Both the writ applications are allowed. AMIN/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)