IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2011 / 14TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 5237 of 2011(D) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- DR.B.LAILA, ADDITIONAL PROFESSOR IN OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY, S.A.T.HOSPITAL, MEDICAL COLLEGE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001. 2. DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 011. 3. DR.THANOOJA.S., ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, MEDICAL COLLEGE, THRISSUR-680 121. *ADDL. R4. IMPLEADED: 4. DR. MANJULA.M, W/O. D. ABHILASH, AGED 39 YEARS, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF GYNAECOLOGY, MEDICAL COLLEGE, TRIVANDRUM, (UNDER ORDERS OF TRANSFER), RESIDING AT MEENAKSHI MANDIRAM, 87, MCRA, CHALAKKUZHI ROAD, MEDICAL COLLEGE, TRIVANDRUM – 11. *ADDL. R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN I.A. NO.6452/11 DATED 5/4/11. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. NISHA BOSE, R3 BY ADVS. SRI.A.SHAFEEK (KAYAMKULAM), SRI.M.G.ANON, ADDL. R4 BY ADV. SRI.S.HARIKRISHNAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/07/2011, ALONG WITH W.P.(C). NO. 10450/2011 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 05/08/2011 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.5237/2011-D: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. E3/3790/87/TDMC DTD. 21/01/1988 OF THE PRINCIPAL, T.D. MEDICAL COLLEGE, ALAPPUZHA. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. E3-11958/88/MCT DTD 30/04/1988 OF THE PRINCIPAL, MEDICAL COLLEGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE G.O.(RT).NO.3314/97/H&FWD DTD. 01/09/1997. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE G.O.(RT).NO.1926/99/H&FWD DTD. 12/07/1999. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE G.O.(RT).NO.2920/2004/H&FWD DTD. 14/10/2004. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE G.O.(RT).NO.3033/2005/H&FWD DTD. 22/10/2005. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE G.O(RT).NO.3580/2010/H&FWD DTD. 13/09/2010. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES G.O.(P).NO.425/2009/H&FWD DTD. 14/12/2009. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE G.O.(MS).NO.57/2011 H&FWD DTD. 02/02/2011. EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE LIST PREPARED BY THE R.2. AND REFERRED TO AS FILE NO.F2-376/2011/DME. EXT.P.11: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 14/02/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.1. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R3.A: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE R.2. EXT.R3.B: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PRINCIPAL, MEDICAL COLLEGE, KOTTAYAM. EXT.R3.C: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE R.2. EXT.R3.D: COPY OF THE TRANSFER ORDER ISSUED BY THE R.2. EXT.R3.E: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 17/01/2006 ISSUED BY THE PRINCIPAL, MEDICAL COLLEGE, KOTTAYAM. EXT.R3.F: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 31/01/2006 ISSUED BY THE PRINCIPAL, MEDICAL COLLEGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXT.R3.G: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 27/11/2008 ISSUED BY THE R.1. EXT.R3.H: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 03/12/2008 ISSUED BY THE PRINCIPAL, MEDICAL COLLEGE, THRISSUR. EXT.R3.I: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE POST GRADUATE MEDICAL EDUCATION REGULATION 2000 AS AMENDED UPTO DECEMBER 2010. W.P.(C). NO.5237/2011-D: EXT.R3.J: COPY OF THE TRANSFER ORDER DTD. 30/04/2010 OF THE TEACHERS OF CHEMISTRY, DEPARTMENT UNDER COLLEGIATE EDUCATION. EXT.R3.K: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 30/04/2010 OF THE TEACHERS OF BOTANY DEPARTMENT UNDER COLLEGIATE EDUCATION. EXT.R3.L: COPY OF THE UGC REGULATION WHICH REDESIGNATED THE TEACHING STAFF OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION AS ASSISTANT PROFESSORS, ASSOCIATE PROFESSORS AND PROFESSORS. EXT.R3.M: COPY OF THE SCHEDULE TO CLAUSE 6.8.0 OF THE UGC REGULATION OUTLINES THE PAY SCALES, DESIGNATION AND STAGES OF PROMOTION UNDER C A S OF INCUMBENT AND DULY APPOINTED TEACHERS. EXT.R4.A: COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 21/09/2004 ISSUED BY R.2. EXT.R4.B: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 04/10/2004 ISSUED BY T.D. MEDICAL COLLEGE, ALAPPUZHA. EXT.R4.C: COPY OF THE JOINING ORDER DTD. 19/04/2007 ISSUED BY MCH, TRIVANDRUM. EXT.R4.D: COPY OF THE G.O.(RT).NO.1238/2011/H&FWA DT. 30/03/2011. EXT.R4.E: COPY OF THE U.G.C. REGULATIONS 2010. EXT.R4.F: COPY OF THE SCHEDULE TO CLAUSE 6.8.9 OF THE U G C REGULATION OUTLINES THE PAY SCALES, DESIGNATION AND STAGES PROMOTION UNDER C A S OF INCUMBENT AND DULY APPOINTED TEACHERS. EXT.R4.G: COPY OF THE POST GRADUATION MEDICAL EDUCATION REGULATION 2000 ISSUED BY MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA. EXT.R4.H: COPY OF THE TRANSFER ORDER DTD. 30/04/2010 ISSUED BY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION. EXT.R4.I: COPY OF THE G.O.(RT).NO.1583/2011/H&FWD DT. 25/04/2011. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) Nos.5237/2011-D, 6453/2011-F, 7590/2011-W, 8525/2011-M, 10450/2011-E & 11482/2011-I - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 5th day of August, 2011. JUDGMENT These writ petitions concern the challenge against the transfers and postings under the Medical Education Service and the guidelines issued. Therefore, they are disposed of by a common judgment. It may be necessary to state in detail the factual matrix. 2. W.P.(C) No.5237/2011 is filed by the petitioner who is now working as Additional Professor in Obstetrics and Gynaecology in S.A.T. Hospital and Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram. The third respondent as well as additional fourth respondent were working as Assistant Professors in the same department in Thrissur and Thiruvananthapuram Medical Colleges. The petitioner is proposed to be transferred out so as to accommodate the third respondent. Pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court the petitioner was not transferred, but subsequently the additional fourth respondent was transferred to accommodate the third respondent and the additional fourth respondent has filed W.P.(C) No.10450/2011 challenging the said order of transfer. wpc 5237/2011, etc. 2 3. The challenge raised by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.5237/2011 is mainly against some of the clauses in the order Ext.P9, whereby the doctors working as Assistant Professor/Associate Professor/Additional Professor are pooled together for the purpose of transfer. The very basis of the same is under challenge in this writ petition. 4. The petitioner entered service as Tutor in the department in 1988, was promoted as Asst. Professor on a regular basis in the year 1997, and as Associate Professor in the year 2004 on a regular basis. After the Career Advancement Scheme was introduced, she was granted Career Advancement Promotion as Additional Professor in the year 2010 as per Ext.P7 order. She is now continuing in Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram. 5. It is the contention of the petitioner that the post of Associate Professor to which she was regularly promoted, is totally different and distinct cadre from that of Asst. Professor. She is now on the verge of promotion as Professor and is the second seniormost in the Medical Education Department comprising four Medical Colleges. She is also the Head of the fourth unit out of six units in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology in the Medical College, Thiruvanthapuram. 6. Ext.P8 is the order by which pay revision has been introduced by wpc 5237/2011, etc. 3 the Government in Government Medical/Dental/Nursing/Pharmaceutical Science Colleges, with effect from 1.1.2006 as per the U.G.C. Schemes. The said scheme provides for Career Advancement Promotion as Additional Professor to an Associate Professor who has completed five years service, with a particular pay scale of Rs.37,400/- - 67,000/-. It is submitted that the same is equivalent to that of Professor and that the said scale of pay cannot be compared to that of Assistant Professor. This is highlighted to show that the post of Additional Professor and Associate Professor are not equivalent to the post of Assistant Professor. They are not interchangeable as they belong to different cadres. It is pointed out that the appendix to Ext.P8 provides for the detailed conditions to be satisfied by the Assistant Professors for being redesignated as Associate Professor and then as Additional Professor. It is pointed out that these grades are granted depending upon the acquisition of qualification and on completing certain number of years of service. 7. Finally, it is contended that an Additional Professor like the petitioner cannot be transferred out to accommodate the third respondent or the additional fourth respondent who are working only as Assistant Professors and they are only in the entry cadre of Assistant Professor alone. 8. Grouping of Assistant Professor/Associate Professor/Additional wpc 5237/2011, etc. 4 Professor as item 'B' in Ext.P9, is therefore under challenge. The next grievance is regarding clause 2(iii) contained in Ext.P9 with regard to home station service. It is pointed out that a person like the petitioner who is working as Additional Professor and who has different home station service in the respective posts, will outweigh the home station service of an Assistant Professor freshly recruited and the home station service in one or more posts/grades put together cannot be reckoned. It is thus pointed out that the said clause reckoning the home station service in one or more posts in Group 'B' in Ext.P9 also cannot be supported. 9. Ext.P10 is the proposal for transfer wherein the petitioner is proposed to be transferred to accommodate the third respondent who, according to the petitioner, has only two years and two months service as Assistant Professor in Medical College, Thrissur. Ext.P11 is the objection submitted by the petitioner in this regard. 10. The third respondent entered service on 25.9.2004 as Senior Lecturer and was promoted as Assistant Lecturer on 27.11.2008. The additional fourth respondent also entered service on 21.9.2004 as Lecturer and was promoted as Senior Lecturer later on and as Assistant Professor on 11.4.2007. 11. In W.P.(C) No.6453/2011 all the petitioners are working as wpc 5237/2011, etc. 5 Associate Professors after obtaining Career Advancement Promotion and the contesting respondents 3 to 5 are working as Assistant Professors. The service particulars show that all the petitioners were initially appointed as lecturers in Opthalmology Department, were granted time bound cadre promotion as Assistant Professor initially. The first petitioner was regularly promoted as Assistant Professor on 29.12.2008, the second petitioner was also regularly promoted as Assistant Professor in 2007 and the third petitioner was granted time bound cadre promotion as Assistant Professor in 2006. The various orders of appointment, orders granting time bound grade promotion, regular promotion as Assistant Professor and Career Advancement Promotion as Associate Professor, have been produced as Exts.P1 to P10. It is alleged that respondents 3 and 4 have not completed three years service as Assistant Professor. 12. In W.P.(C) No.7590/2011 the petitioners are working as Associate Professors in Opthalmology in Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram. Their appointment as Lecturers is on different dates in 1986, 1995, 1996 and 2000. They were promoted as Assistant Professors as per Exts.P1 to P5 orders. All the petitioners have been granted Career Advancement Promotion as Associate Professor and the third petitioner was granted the grade of Additional Professor on notional basis with effect wpc 5237/2011, etc. 6 from 14.12.2009. The fourth respondent was granted regular promotion as Associate Professor by Ext.P8 order dated 24.4.2010. They are also challenging the very same Government Order prescribing the norms for transfer. 13. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.8525/2011 is working as Associate Professor in Paediatrics in Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram. He has completed 20 years of Medical Education Service. By Ext.P1, he was promoted as Associate Professor in the year 2007 and his probation was also declared, as evident from Ext.P2 order. The third respondent therein joined as Assistant Professor three years back and is working in Medical College, Thrissur. The very same orders are under challenge in this writ petition. Learned counsel for the third respondent submitted that her claim for transfer is for different reasons. 14. In W.P.(C) No.11482/2011, petitioners 1 to 3, 5 and 6 are working as Associate Professors in Paediatrics in Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram and the fourth petitioner is working as Additional Professor in Paediatrics in the same college. Exts.P1 to P6 are the true copies of the initial appointment orders. They have been promoted regularly as Assistant Professor as per Ets.P7 to P11 orders. Petitioners 1 and 3 were granted Career Advancement Promotion as Associate Professor wpc 5237/2011, etc. 7 as per Exts.P12 and P14 orders. The second petitioner was earlier granted time bound cadre promotion as Associate Professor as per Ext.P13. The fourth petitioner was promoted on a regular basis as Associate Professor by Ext.P15 order and was later granted Career Advancement Promotion as per Ext.P16. Petitioners 5 and 6 were also granted time bound cadre promotion and Career Advancement Promotion as Associate Professor by Exts.P17 and P18 orders. 15. In W.P.(C) No.10450/2011, the petitioner is working as Assistant Professor in the department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology in Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram, with effect from 11.4.2007. She joined service on 21.9.2004. Her family is settled in Thiruvananthapuram and husband is working in a private hospital as Cardiologist. In the proposal for general transfer of Medical College Doctors, the petitioner's name was not included. Ext.P1 is the said list. Thereafter, by Ext.P2 order, she was transferred to Medical College, Alappuzha which is under challenge in this writ petition on various grounds. 16. The contentions raised by the petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos.5237/2011, 6453/2011, 7590/2011, 8525/2011 and 11482/2011 are identical. They are challenging the grouping of Assistant Professor/Associate Professor/Additional Professor together for the purpose wpc 5237/2011, etc. 8 of transfer. 17. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the party respondents and learned Govt. Pleader. 18. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners who have been re-designated as Associate Professor/Additional Professor, have been given the said status after completing the required number of years of service and they have performed the duties in different cadres and have got the required educational qualifications. It is submitted that the duties and responsibilities of Assistant Professor and Associate Professor/Additional Professor have no comparison. By the successive promotions and Career Advancement Promotion, they have acquired a particular status. Therefore, they cannot be transferred out to accommodate persons in the cadre of Assistant Professor, as the posts are not equivalent. These posts are not interchangeable and they belong to different cadres in the department concerned. My attention was invited to the pay revision order Ext.P8 produced in W.P.(C) No.5237/2011 to point out that now the new recruits will be designated as Assistant Professors whereas the incumbent Lecturers and Senior Lecturers have been redesignated as Assistant Professor based on the fulfilment of conditions therein. It is pointed out that only after satisfying certain criteria including qualification wpc 5237/2011, etc. 9 and number of years, one will get regular promotion/Career Advancement Promotion as Associate Professor. It is therefore submitted that experience, qualification and fulfillment of conditions alone have resulted in the redesignation. The Assistant Professor is the entry level post now. Therefore, the contention emphatically raised is that by making the post of Assistant Professor interchangeable with Additional Professor and Associate Professor for transfer, the Government has acted arbitrarily and without any application of mind. 19. The respondents mainly contend for the position that by Career Advancement Promotion, there is no change of duties and responsibilities. It is pointed out that the UGC Scheme and the regulations framed by the Medical Council of India have been implemented and the petitioners are also the beneficiaries of the same. They are getting only a higher pay and therefore there is no illegality in the grouping of Assistant Professor along with Associate Professor and Additional Professor, in the guidelines. It is submitted that the promotions are not made by any proceedings of the Departmental Promotion Committee and the transfers are not effected on a post to post basis. It is thus the contention of the contesting respondents that the beneficiaries of the UGC Scheme and the Medical Council of India regulations cannot turn down and object to the guidelines Ext.P9, after wpc 5237/2011, etc. 10 they have been benefited from the UGC Scheme. On the merits also, certain contentions have been raised with regard to the number of years served by some of the petitioners in the particular Medical Colleges. It is finally pointed out that the guidelines have been framed to have a uniform transfer policy so as to alleviate the grievance of persons like the contesting respondents who have got long period of out station service than some of the petitioners. 20. On behalf of the Government also a counter affidavit has been filed. 21. The exhibits are referred to as contained in W.P.(C). No.5237/2011. The Career Advancement Promotion, as evident from Ext.P8, on an analysis, show the following: Going by para 5.1, there will be three teaching grades in the Government Medical and Dental Colleges, viz. Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and Professor. There will be a post of Additional Professor for Career Advancement Promotion of Associate Professors. The entry cadre of teaching staff will be Assistant Professor. As per para 5.2, all existing Senior Lecturers having Post Graduate Medical/Dental Degree in the concerned discipline will be redesignated as Assistant Professor. The Lecturers who are not having P.G. degree will continue to be designated as Lecturer till they acquire the P.G. wpc 5237/2011, etc. 11 qualification and thereafter they will be redesignated as Assistant Professors. The revised scales of pay of Assistant Professor are given in para 7.4 and that of Associate Professor in para 7.5. Evidently, they are not identical. Under para 7.5(ii) the incumbent Assistant Professors with five years of teaching experience as Assistant Professor with grades and scales of pay, etc. and having a total service of 8 years after acquiring P.G. qualification (five years for super speciality degree holders), will be promoted and placed in the pay band of Rs.37400-67000 with Academic Grade Pay of Rs.9,000/- and shall be redesignated as Associate professors. They will have to publish two research papers within a period of two years, etc. Assistant Professors who have not completed five years teaching service as on 1.1.2006 will be placed in a different pay band. As far as Associate Professors are concerned, those who are in the pay scale of Rs.14,300 - 19,200 on completion of 3 years of service, will be eligible for promotion as Professor and placed in the new pay band of Rs.37,400 - 67,000 with Academic Grade Pay of Rs.10,000/- subject to the availability of vacancy and satisfying other Academic performance requirements as specified. They will have to publish 4 Research papers in Peer Indexed/National Journals within a period of two years of promotion as per MCI/DCI regulations, The Professors in Medical and Dental Colleges will wpc 5237/2011, etc. 12 be given Academic Grade pay of Rs.12,000/- on completion of 10 years of service as Professor in the revised/pre-revised scales. Para 8(e) provides for a new grade of Additional Professor. Associate professors who complete 5 years of service will be eligible for such placement at Rs.37400 - 67000 with A.G.P. of Rs.10,000/- subject to publication of two research papers. 22. While adopting the transfer guidelines as per Ext.P9, what was done is to put together the existing faculties both cadre and non cadre for pooling as A, B, C and D. It is stated that this has been done in view of the Career Advancement Promotion allowed as per the pay revision ordered in the Government Order dated 14.12.2009, viz. Ext.P8. Here, we are concerned with only Group 'B' which is as follows: “B. Assistant Professor/Associate Professor/Additional Professor.” Going in para 2.(i), for teachers in Group B, transfer can be effected against any of the three grades/posts in the group. Para 2.(ii) provides that “the total continuous service in a station in one or more posts under group (B) will be taken together as qualifying service for transfer. Para 2.iii reads as follows: “iii. In the case of transfer under Group (B) faculty having more home station service in one or more posts/grades under group (B) may be transferred out in order to accommodate an eligible wpc 5237/2011, etc. 13 incumbent in his/her home station.” Therefore, the combined effect of the above will show that transfers can be made against any of the three grades/posts. For considering the qualifying service for transfer, the service in a station in one or more posts under Group (B) will be taken together. For the purpose of considering home station service, the faculty having more home station service in one or more posts/grades under group (B) can be transferred out in order to accommodate an eligible incumbent. 23. The first question is whether even if it is in implementation of Career Advancement Promotion, whether there will be any equivalence as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, as regards Assistant Professors and Associate Professors are concerned. According to the learned counsel appearing for the party respondents, there are no change of duties. Evidently, Career Advancement Promotion for the post of Associate Professor and above, is given only on the basis of qualification and after completion of sufficient number of years of teaching experience, etc.. Therefore, grant of Career Advancement Promotion is on the basis of different yardsticks and the pay bands for the three groups are also different. Going by the pleadings of the parties, the post of Additional Professor, Associate Professor and Assistant Professor are not wpc 5237/2011, etc. 14 interchangeable and each of them belongs to a different cadre. Since one of the main contentions of the petitioners is that they cannot be transferred out to accommodate persons who are far juniors to them in the cadre of Assistant Professor, the crucial question is whether the petitioners have acquired a status different from that of Assistant Professors. In this context, particular reference was made to the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in paragraphs 15 and 17 of the decision in Tejshree Ghag and others v. Prakash parashuram Patil and others {(2007) 6 SCC 220} which is in the following terms: “The orders of transfer were passed by Authority in purported exercise of its executive power. Executive power can be exercised only in terms of the extant rules. Where executive order results in civil consequences, principles of natural justice are required to be complied with prior thereto. It is not a case where an order of transfer was passed by way of change of place of employment within an organisation simpliciter. An order of transfer ordinarily should be in terms of the existing rules. Transfer may even be incidental to the conditions or service, but thereby nobody can be deprived of his existing right. Existence of a power and exercise thereof are two different concepts. An executive power in absence of any statutory rules cannot be exercised which would result in civil or penal consequences. Such exercise of power must, moreover, be bona fide. It cannot be done for unauthorised wpc 5237/2011, etc. 15 purpose. An executive order passed for unauthorised purpose would amount to malice in law. An order of transfer cannot prejudicially affect the status of an employee. If orders of transfer substantially affect the status of an employee, the same would be violative of the conditions of service and, thus, illegal. Transfers must be made to an equivalent post. Besides, on facts, the orders of transfer could not have been passed without complying with the principles of natural justice.” The said dictum will show that transfer must be made to an equivalent post and if orders of transfer substantially affect the status of an employee, the same would be violative of the conditions of service and thus illegal. 24. In Roshan Lal Tandon v. Union of India and others (AIR 1967 SC 1889) with regard to the question whether the Government service is contractual or not, the Supreme Court laid down the legal position thus, in para 6: “But once appointed to his post or office the Government servant acquires a status and his rights and obligations are no longer determined by consent of both parties, but by statute or statutory rules which may be framed and altered unilaterally by the Government. In other words, the legal position of a Government servant is more one of status than of contract. The hall-mark of status is the attachment to a legal relationship of rights and duties imposed by the public law and not by mere agreement of the wpc 5237/2011, etc. 16 parties.” It is thus contended that going by the said dictum also, it can be seen that a Government servant once appointed to his post or office, acquires a status. 25. In Vice Chancellor L.N. Mithila University v. Dayanand Jha {(1986) 3 SCC 7}, the question considered was whether a transfer should be made to a post which is not equivalent. Therein, after considering various arguments regarding the challenge against transfer from the post of Principal to the post of Reader, the Apex Court