THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WP No. 8048 of 2009 & 8049 of 2009 Both these writ petitions can be dealt with together as the issue involved is common to both the cases. The petitioner in WP No. 8049 of 2009 has been functioning as the Principal of the B.Ed., College, at Hyderabad, run by Dakshin Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha, the 1st respondent herein eversince 1.7.1997. Earlier thereto also, she appears to have worked as a Lecturer for a considerable period at the same college at Hyderabad. By the impugned order, she has been transferred and posted as Principal of the college at Vijayawada in place of the petitioner in WP No. 8048 of 2009. The 6th respondent in WP No. 8049 of 2009 who has been working as Principal of the College of Education at Chennai has now been transferred and posted at Hyderabad in place of the petitioner in WP No. 8049 of 2009. It is the case of the petitioner that the 6th respondent has been promoted as Principal of the college at Chennai only on 20.12.2008 and he joined duty at Chennai on 22.12.2008 and he exerted enough pressure on the 1st respondent resulting in the impugned order of transfer. It is further asserted that the order of transfer has been passed in violation of Rule 24 of the Rules framed by the 1st respondent. The petitioner in WP No. 8048 of 2009 functioned as the Principal of the B.Ed. College at Trichi with effect from 1.12.1997. He was later on transferred in the same capacity to the B.Ed., college at Nileswar in the State of Kerala and subsequently he was transferred and posted to the college at Dharwar in Karnataka State and subsequently transferred to the College at Mysore in Karnataka. He was again transferred and posted to the College at Nileswar on 2.6.2004 and from there, transferred and posted as Principal of the college at Vijayawada on 6.5.2007. Since then, he has been functioning at Vijayawada. Through the impugned order, he has been transferred and posted to the college at Chennai in place of the 6th respondent in WP No. 8049 of 2009. As was already noticed supra, the petitioner in WP No. 8049 of 2009 has been transferred and posted from Hyderabad in place of this petitioner. It is also asserted by this petitioner that the impugned order has been passed in violation of the transfer policy and the rules on the subject framed by the University. Dakshin Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha, the 1st respondent has been established by an Act of Parliament called `Dakshin Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha Act, 1994, Central Act 14 of 1964. This institution has been declared as an institution of national importance. One of the principal objectives in establishing this institution was to secure spread of the knowledge of Hindi language and literature among the four south Indian non-hindi speaking states. It hardly admits of any doubt that Dakshin Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha is recognized as a premier institution which has been contributing its might, not only for promotion of hindi language and literature among the four southern states, but has been greatly contributing to the ultimate goal of national integration. Laudable were the objectives behind the institution and the various educational institutions run and managed by Dakshin Bharat Prachar Sabha have all received the due acclaim from various academic quarters. The high quality teaching and training imparted in those institutions made them stand out singularly. More with a view to regulate its own conduct and curtail, to the extent feasible, the elements of discretion, service rules have been framed and Rule 24 thereof imparts the guidelines for effecting transfers of the employees. It is spelt out therein that no transfer would be effected during the semester year and generally before effecting the transfer, the candidates concerned would be intimated two months in advance either orally or in writing to enable them to get prepared for such a transfer and employees who have served at a centre/college for three years may be transferred and that such of those teachers of post-graduate and research who have been transferred and served at all the four post-graduate centers will not be transferred again and that the teachers of B.Ed., college who have been transferred four times in their service span will not be transferred again and that the teachers of the B.Ed., college will not be transferred within the same State or to the college where they have already served earlier and that in case of complaints about character, misconduct and insubordination of the employee, transfers may be effected at any time without regard being had to the period of stay of the individual. Thus, a look at Rule 24 would disclose that it has provided for as nearly as is possible ideal conditions to enable the exercise of power carried out on proper lines. Every institution of excellence would try to achieve very high standards of excellence in its administrative and transparency of functioning is one of the hallmarks of such efficient administrations. The essential complaint of both the writ petitioners is that the spirit behind these guidelines contained in Rule 24 have been breached in their cases. The 6th respondent in WP No. 8049 of 2009 had hardly completed few months of service at Chennai and to accommodate his interests, both these writ petitioners have been transferred in turn. Though a brief counter affidavit has been filed, the contents of the counter affidavit have left much to be desired. No attempt is even made to put at rest, the assertion of the writ petitioners that it is for protecting the interests of the 6th respondent in WP NO. 8049 of 2009, these chain of transfers have been effected. The learned counsel for the respondents has placed before me a copy of the Minutes of the Administrative Committee Meeting for Faculty of Educcation that was held on 12.4.2009 at Dharwar, Karnataka State where the proposal for transfers has been finalized. It was taken on record. While dealing with the case of the writ petitioner in WP No. 8049 of 2009, it was noted therein that she has been subjected to a transfer because she had completed nearly 12 years of service at Hyderabad. When it came to the petitioner in WP No. 8048 of 2009, it is stated that there are some oral complaints reported about him and it is also noted that his performance is not up to the mark. It was also pointed out that he was not following the rules and regulations of Dakshin Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha and that if he is transferred and posted to Chennai, he can be under the direct supervision of the Registrar and the Vice Chancellor. Quite inexplicably, though, the Committee feels that the performance of the 6th respondent in WP No. 8049 of 2009 was found to be up to the mark and he was also said to be capable of sorting out the discrepancies earned by the writ petitioner in WP No. 8049 of 2009 at Hyderabad. While administrative and high academic bodies are certainly capable of making an assessment of the capabilities of the employees though the stint and their tenure could be very brief, but what surprises is the fact that the 6th respondent in WP No. 8049 of 2009 has been found to be performing up to the mark while the two petitioners herein are sought to be painted in a different hue, without elaborating anything specifically. The learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS v. JANARDHAR DEBANATH AND ANOTHER[1] wherein the Supreme Court has pointed out the principles concerning the issues of transfer in the following manner: “……. No government servant or employee of a public undertaking has any legal right to be posted forever at any one particular place or place of his choice since transfer of a particular employee appointed to the class or category of transferable posts from one place to other is not only an incident, but a condition of service, necessary too in public interest and efficiency in the public administration. Unless an order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of mala fide exercise or stated to be in violation of statutory provisions prohibiting any such transfer, the courts or the tribunals normally cannot interfere with such orders as a matter of routine, as though they were the appellate authorities substituting their own decision for that of the employer/management, as against such orders passed in the interest of administrative exigencies of the service concerned………………. The manner, nature and extent of exercise to be undertaken by Courts/tribunals in a case to adjudge whether it casts a stigma or constitutes one by way of punishment would also very much depend upon the consequences flowing from the order and as to whether it adversely affected any service conditions - status, service prospects financially and same yardstick, norms or standards cannot be applied to all category of cases. Transfers unless they involve any such adverse impact or visits the persons concerned with any penal consequences, are not required to be subjected to same type of scrutiny, approach and assessment as in the case of dismissal, discharge, reversion or termination and utmost latitude should be left with the department concerned to enforce discipline, decency and decorum in public service which are indisputably essential to maintain quality of public service and meet untoward administrative exigencies to ensure smooth functioning of the administration. (13) xxxxx (14) …………… For the purposes of effecting a transfer, the question of holding an enquiry to find out whether there was mis-behaviour or conduct unbecoming of an employee is unnecessary and what is needed is the prima facie satisfaction of the authority concerned on the contemporary reports………..” Learned counsel therefore contends that this court should not interfere with the impugned orders and dismis the writ petitions. There is no gainsaying that transferability of an employee is a pure incidence of service if the organization has more number of units than one under its administrative control. For the purpose of toning up the administration, subjecting its employees to transfer is a very routine exercise indulged in. It would help, in the individuals not acquiring vested interests by working at one particular place for long years. It would also help in the most efficient employee’s services being made available at the other institutions/units also so that the standards of efficiency can always be improved upon, all due to the contribution of such employees. These are all areas exclusively within the domain of the consideration of the competent authority. There are hardly any grounds for substituting the opinion of courts. The administrators are the best judges about the requirements and the possible improvement that can be achieved through appropriate utilization of the available human resources. But, at the same time, a word of caution is needed to be administered. The power of effecting transfers on administrative grounds or in the exigencies of services, should not be wielded in such a manner to induce an element of uncertainty and hesitation in the minds of the employees so that they can be on their tenter hooks. Employees should not be subjected to orders of transfer if they are found to be inconvenient to be dealt with otherwise. In other words, the power of transfer available in the hands of every administrator should not be allowed to be misused to strike a note of terror amongst his subordinates. Any such exercise will acquire the characteristics of lacking bonafides in the exercise itself and render it vulnerable. In the instant case, the writ petitioner in WP No. 8049 of 2009 has listed out two specific areas of concern where she felt that it is not proper to recruit two such candidates. One of the incidences relates to the recruitment of one Sri A.T.Radhakrishnan, who is recruited and posted as a Lecturer at the College of Education, Hyderabad. According to the writ petitioner, Sri Radhakrishnan has acquired his M.Ed., post-graduate qualification from one of the institutions in Uttar Pradesh which has been declared by the University Grants Commission as a “fake University”. The UGC being the nodal agency on Higher Education has been sending out periodical alerts about fake Universities in the country. Indian Educational Council of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh is one such institute declared to be a fake University by the UGC. The writ petitioner points out that Sri A.T.Radhakrishnan has secured his M.Ed., post- graduate qualification from the said institute and consequently he should not have been selected as a Lecturer. It was also pointed out by the writ petitioner that Sri Radhakrishnan did not possess the necessary qualification of Ph.D., also. The 2nd incident relates to the selection and appointment of Smt.K.Charulatha as Lecturer at the B.Ed., college, Hyderabad. According to the petitioner, the post that is sought to be filled in is that of a Lecturer in Social Sciences, one of the subjects to be taught at the training college. Whereas Smt.Charulatha has possessed B.Sc., Degree and M.A., Degree in Hindi language and literature. Therefore, the writ petitioner has objected for her selection and appointment as a lecturer for teaching social sciences subject. The writ petitioner has also pointed out that Smt.K.Charulatha has not been selected wholly due to the merit of the candidate, but because her husband Sri P.Venkata Reddy donated a handsome sum of Rs.50,000/- to the Sabha. The 1st respondent being an institution of national importance can hardly leave any room for improper methods of selection of its teaching faculty. No person who has secured an academic degree from a fake university should be allowed or permitted to be recruited by any university much less by an institution of the importance and standing of the 1st respondent. Similarly, no person should be allowed to be recruited to its teaching faculty notwithstanding the candidate lacking in the essential qualifications. If the post that is sought to be filled in is that of a teacher to teach social sciences for the B.Ed., students, one can hardly imagine a candidate possessing B.Sc., degree and M.A., degree in Hindi language and literature to be a competent person to be recruited for such a post. It is not as if that candidates who can teach social sciences are not available in the open market in this country. A distinctly uncomfortable feeling has been left to gain ground that the writ petitioner in WP No. 8049 of 2009 has been eased out of her office of Principal of the college of education perhaps because it was conceived by the administration of the 1st respondent that she is able to assert her position strongly. Academic excellence partakes with it academic impartiality and objectivity. What is not otherwise right is not liable to be called right just to please someones ears. Merely because someone is becoming assertive, no attempt should be made to ease out such candidates from the office, because the objections raised by them are becoming difficult to be dealt with. Similarly, the writ petitioner in WP No. 8048 of 2009 has pointed out that the statement that there are oral complaints against him is an invention made merely for the sake of sustaining the order of transfer. The said writ petitioner has been transferred repeatedly from place to place and he has hardly worked for two years at Vijayawada. The fact that the impugned order is likely to visit him causing dislocation to his family life including uprooting the academic calender and schedule of his school going children cannot per se perhaps be a factor for interfering with an administrative order of transfer, but, at the same time, when the 6th respondent in WP No. 8049 of 2009 who has hardly worked for four months at Chennai has been subjected to transfer to his choicest place, it is bound to be viewed with disfavour amongst the employees. No model employer can ever send a wrong signal amongst its cadre that some people receive more than the equal treatment. Such tendencies will lead to unhealthy patronizing of some and antagonizing the others who are not willing to toe the line dictated to by the administrator concerned. It is the subjectivity but not objectivity that will come to play the central role. I therefore do not consider that this court should be called upon to pronounce that the impugned orders of transfer are vitiated by malice, but, however, they have left enough room in the minds of the writ petitioners that they have been eased out of their offices more with a view to accommodate the interests of the 6th respondent and also because they are becoming difficult to be dealt with for their academic independence and impartiality. I therefore consider it appropriate to leave the entire matter to be examined by the Vice Chancellor of the 1st respondent University. The Vice Chancellor being the Chief Executive of a University, he can be expected to be totally impartial about the entire matter. I therefore direct the Vice Chancellor to take into consideration and account all factors, as noted supra, and decide as expeditiously as possible as to whether it is still needed to transfer both the writ petitioners out of their respective places at all or not. Till such time, the Vice Chancellor takes a decision and communicates the same to the petitioners, they shall not be disturbed from functioning at the respective places viz., College of Education at Hyderabad and College of Education at Vijayawada of the 1st respondent University. Both the writ petitions stand disposed of. No costs. -------------- knk 29.06.2009 To Dt : 22.6.2009 The Area Manager, M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Vijayawada Sir, Earlier I was working with M/s. ITC, Anaparthi, East Godavari District and I have not availed any gas connection from Indian Oil Corporation Dealer therein. I have since taken employment at Amara Raja Industries and presently stationed at Chittoor, I request you to sanction an LPG Gas connection in my name at Chittoor with double bottling facility. Yours faithfully, (S.Geethasree) M/s. Amara Raja Industries, Adj. To D.No. 2-1264, Near Judges Quarters, Chittoor 9908349292, 9490400392 [1] (2004) 4 SCC 245