1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Writ Petition No.4420/2008 Dr. Avinash s/o Dinkar Deshmukh Vs. Mah. Animal & Fishery Science University and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Mr. A. Parchure, Adv. for the petitioner. Mr. A.B. Patril, Adv. for respondent no.1. Coram : B.H. Marlapalle and A.H. Joshi, JJ. Dated : 14th October, 2008. Heard Mr. Parchure, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Patil, learned counsel appears for respondent nos.1 and 2. The petitioner came to be relieved from the post of the Deputy Registrar and transferred to the post of Assistant Professor at the new Veterinary College started at Shirval in Satara district as per the order dated 2.5.2008. The said order was challenged at the first instance before this Court in Writ Petition No. 1995/2008. The said petition came to be disposed off on 4.9.2008 and the petitioner was granted liberty to submit a representation against the transfer order to the Grievance Committee of respondent no.1-University. In the said petition, on 6.5.2008 a statement was made before this Court that the impugned transfer order would not be given effect until the next date. The petitioner submitted his representation dated 2 10.9.2008 to the Grievance Committee and the same was considered, the petitioner was heard and was rejected as per the order dated 16.9.2008.. The order passed by the Grievance Committee is also under challenge along with the order of transfer dated 2.5.2008. As per the petitioner, the transfer order suffers from malice inasmuch as the petitioner has been sought to be penalised as he had approached this Court in Writ Petition No. 1660/2008 and sought orders against the University. It is further alleged that on the petitioner being relieved from the post of Deputy Registrar, he ought to have been absorbed as an Assistant Professor at Nagpur itself against the available three posts rather than being transferred to Shirval and such an order would be in the larger interest of the students at Nagpur. It has been further claimed that the transfer order was not for the administrative exigencies, but it is only by way of victimization as the petitioner had initiated legal proceedings against the University. Affidavit in reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 and it has been pointed out that after the petitioner's tenure in the post of the Deputy Registrar had expired, he was to be transferred as Assistant Professor and in view of the insistence of the Veterinary Council of India to provide adequate staff at the newly started Veterinary College at Shirval, the petitioner was transferred to the same place. The letter of the Veterinary Council of India is placed on record. The letter dated 3.12.2007 issued by Veterinary Council of India 3 states that meeting of the Executive Committee of the Council was held on 27.10.2007 and it was decided that the minimum requirements in respect of the staff and other infrastructure at the Veterinary Colleges run by respondent no.1-University were required to be provided and the University was to be called upon to comply with the same and, more particularly, in respect of the Veterinary Colleges at Udgir and Satara. We have noted from the record that after the impugned order was issued on 2.5.2008 the petitioner proceeded on medical leave and it appears that on 14.5.2008 had sought to join at the Veterinary College at Nagpur without there being any order to the same effect. The impugned order clearly states that he was relieved from the post of the Deputy Registrar and was transferred to the Veterinary College at Shirval as Assistant Professor. Even if a statement was made by the University that the transfer order would not be given any effect until the next date, that, by itself, would not imply or infer that the petitioner was directed to be absorbed or appointed at the Veterinary College at Nagpur. As is well established, our powers to interfere with the transfer order are very limited. There is no dispute that the petitioner's service is transferable all over the State of Maharashtra. He has been at Nagpur in different capacities from 1.11.1995. The affidavit in reply filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 states that at Shirval, to meet the minimum staff requirements, as per the Veterinary Council of India 4 recommendations, one post of Assistant Professor has been vacant and other post has been filled. Even out of the two posts of Associate Professor, one post has been filled by temporary appointment and one is still vacant. Under these circumstances, if the University decided to transfer the petitioner at the Veterinary College at Shirval, no fault could be found so as to cause interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has also raised the grievance that the Grievance Committee which heard his representation and rejected the same on 16.9.2008 was not validly constituted. First of all, having appeared before the Grievance Committee, it is not permissible for the petitioner now to challenge the constitution of the Committee and, in any case, the order passed on 16.9.2008 indicates that there were four members who heard the petitioner, considered his representation and passed the order. The Vice- Chancellor himself was the Chairman and amongst other three members the Comptroller of Examination, the nominee of Executive Council and Member Secretary of the Grievance Committee, were present. Thus, out of the six members of the Grievance Committee, four were present and in terms of Statute- 39, one third of the total number of members, of any authority or committee shall constitute the quorum of the meeting of such authority or committee. Hence, there is no merit in the challenge to the constitution of the Grievance Committee. The order passed by the Grievance Committee does indicate that the petitioner was heard, his representation was 5 considered and the Grievance Committee has passed a reasoned order. The view taken by the Grievance Committee cannot be termed as illegal or erroneous. We, therefore, do not find any case made out to cause interference in the transfer order issued on 2.5.2008 and hence, this petition fails at the thresh-hold and the same is rejected summarily. JUDGE JUDGE Ambulkar.