IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3334 of 2011 PRABHAT KUMAR SON OF LATE INDRADEO PRASAD SINGH RESIDENT OF KANKARBAGH HOUSING COLONY, FLAT NO. U/463, NEAR AUTO STAND, P.S. KANKARBAGH, DISTRICT PATNA. Versus 1. BIHAR AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY SABOUR, BHAGALPUR THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR HAVING OFFICE AT SABOUR, BHAGALPUR. 2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, BIHAR AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, SABOUR, BHAGALPUR. 3. THE DIRECTOR, ADMINISTRATION, BIHAR AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, SABOUR, BHAGALPUR. 4. THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE, PATNA. ----------- 3 09/05/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent Rajendra Agriculture University. Petitioner has challenged the order of transfer initially notified in terms of annexure-3 and then modified by a fresh order as such which came to be passed in terms of annexure-4. Annexure-4 dated 1.2.2011 carries the names of six persons including the present petitioner who have been posted at various locations under the respondent University looking at their utility as well as responsibility which the - 2 - respondent authorities think can be best shouldered by them. One of the primary submissions is that the present order is a fall out because of some “trade union activity” which was organized for ventilating the grievance of the employees and the petitioner was elected coordinator of the so called Union to carry out campaign in the University. He further says that looking at his experience in the branch which he has, his posting in terms of annexure-4 is wasted effort of utilizing experience of the petitioner by the University. There is some allegation of malafide as well. A third ground which has been urged is that two Universities have been created and bifurcation has been effected. Employees have offered their option and even before deciding that option, transfers have been effected. This Court does not find any clear breach of any Rule which prevents the Vice Chancellor from effecting transfer of the employees who are still within his control as he is a cadre controlling authority even till date despite bifurcation of the University into two entity. The exercise of bifurcation and regularisation of employees is still - 3 - going on and to that extent mere creation of a separate University by itself does not create a situation where the respondent authorities are helpless in exercising the power. In so far as the petitioner’s involvement in Union activity for agitational programme, which has been worked out in terms of annexure-2, is concerned, the Court can only indicate that he is not a protected workman under the Trade Union Act where benefit can be extended to him. He is a Research Assistant and does not fall within the definition of ”workman”. In addition to that the Court can only say that the employer knows best as to where he has to utilize its employees and unless there is something fundamentally wrong with the order which has been exercised, there is no occasion to allow the order of transfer not taking effect. The Court is not convinced that it is a malafide transfer or power of transfer exercised beyond the authority vested in the concerned person. This writ application has no merit. It is dismissed as such. AMIN/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.) - 4 -