LPA No. 1529 of 2010 (O&M) in/and -1- C.W.P. No. 14246 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 1529 of 2010 (O&M) in/and C.W.P. No. 14246 of 2010 Date of Decision 12.01.2011 The National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education & Research and others -----Appellants Versus Dr. Neeraj Kumar and another ---Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present: Mr. K.K. Gupta, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. R.K. Arora, Advocate for petitioner-respondent No.1 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The instant appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against interlocutory order dated 11.10.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge. With the consent of the parties we have taken up the writ petition for disposal alongwith this appeal. While admitting the writ petition, the learned Single Judge has held that order dated 21.07.2010 (Annexure P-15) shall remain stayed. According to the aforesaid order passed by the Officiating Registrar, the writ petitioner-respondent No.1 Dr. Neeraj Kumar, who has been working as Assistant Professor, Department of Pharmaceutics was LPA No. 1529 of 2010 (O&M) in/and -2- C.W.P. No. 14246 of 2010 transferred to Department of Pharmaceutical Technology (Formulation) under the Prof. U.C. Banerjee with effect e.g., from the date the order was passed. However, it was made clear that he would continue to associate with teaching and research programme in hand. The National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research, challenged the aforesaid order in the instant appeal on the ground that only change effected by order dated 21.07.2010 (Annexure P-15) was that his departmental head was changed and no other change was to be effected by virtue of the aforesaid order. 2. When the matter came up for consideration on 04.01.2011, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner-respondent No.1 has submitted that the writ petitioner-respondent's would suffer a set back because on the website his name now figures only under the department of Pharmaceutical Technology as against his own area of discipline i.e. Pharmaceutics. Accordingly, it was pointed out that any person surfing the website would never be able to find information relating to him under the discipline of Pharmaceutics. 3. Mr. K.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant had, however, pointed out that it was an unintentional act and there was no intention to cause any harm to the writ petitioner-respondent. According to the learned counsel, his administrative control alone has been changed so as to bring peace between the Head of the Department of Pharmaceuticals and writ petitioner-respondent. In order to substantiate his claim, Mr. Gupta, learned counsel has LPA No. 1529 of 2010 (O&M) in/and -3- C.W.P. No. 14246 of 2010 produced before us the record which indicated that there was various letters written by Prof. Arvind Kumar Bansal, Department of Pharmaceutics showing that those letters highlighted the differences between Prof. Arvind Kumar Bansal and writ petitioner-respondent. Accordingly, their relationship cannot be considered as cordial. However, Mr. Gupta, learned counsel had requested for some time to file affidavit of a responsible officer to clarify that no other change would be effected causing any harm to the career of the writ petitioner-respondent except change in his department and that too for the purposes of administrative work only. Accordingly, an affidavit dated 06.1.2011 of Mr. Harmeet Singh, Acting Registrar has been filed and in para 2 of the affidavit, it has been mentioned that the website have already been rectified on 28.10.2010 when the writ petitioner -respondent had sent e-mail to that effect and even in the comment sent by Dr. Prabha Garg, Associate Professor, Computer Centre, NIPER, Mohali, the Director of the Institute has been informed that it continued in its corrected position from 28.10.2010 itself. Accordingly, the name of writ petitioner-respondent continues to appear under the Department of Pharmaceutics as is evident from the annexures attached with the affidavit. 4. Mr. R.K. Arora, learned counsel for writ petitioner- respondent No.1, expresses his satisfaction over the filing of affidavit and states that the appeal be disposed of alongwith writ petition filed by him. LPA No. 1529 of 2010 (O&M) in/and -4- C.W.P. No. 14246 of 2010 5. In view of the above, the appeal as well as writ petition No. 14246 of 2010 are disposed of with a direction that the appellant shall treat the transfer of writ petitioner-respondent No.1 from the Department of Pharmaceutics to the Department of Pharmaceuticals Technology (Formulation) only for administrative purpose by changing his Head of the Department and not for any other purpose. 6. Accordingly, the appeal as well as writ petition are disposed of with the above terms. Office is directed to place a copy of this order on the file of CWP No. 14246 of 2010. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (T.P.S. MANN) JUDGE January 12, 2011 Atul