IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 1297 of 2010. Decided on: May 13, 2010. Ravinder Singh Rana ….. Petitioner. Versus CSK, H.P. Krishi Vishwavidlaya & anr. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. For the petitioner (s) Mr.Subhash Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents Mr. Lokinder Paul Thakur, Advocate. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The petitioner is aggrieved by his transfer to Palampur. It is the case of the petitioner that he is a renowned scientist and has made several contributions, some of which are referred to in the affidavit. It is also submitted that he is half way through a project. Still further, it is submitted that the place and the post to where and to which he is posted does not have any reference to his qualification and experience and he has hardly anything to do in that place. It is also pointed out that in case any scientist is required to be posted at Palampur in view of the instruction from I.C.A.R., there are several scientists available at Palampur itself who can be given the charge. There is also contention that in case the petitioner is able to complete the present project, he is sure to get appropriate accolade and the last submission is that since the son of the petitioner is in 10 + 2 and if it is absolutely necessary to transfer the petitioner to Palampur, the same be deferred at least up to 2 March, 2011 so that transfer would not affect the educational prospects of his son. 2. By an order dated 8th April, 2010, we directed the Vice Chancellor to look into Annexure P-4, representation filed by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon. According to the petitioner, the representation was disposed of even prior to the order dated 8th April, 2010. Be that as it may. We find from the order that the Vice Chancellor has not, in any case, looked into any of the submissions made by the petitioner in Annexure P-4, representation. The representation has been disposed of with a cryptic one sentence order which reads as follows: “ Discussed with Rana, it is not possible”. 3. We are afraid that the Vice Chancellor has not applied his mind to any of the submissions made by the petitioner in the representation, some of which we have referred to in the judgment hereinbefore. 4. Having regard to the various submissions made by the petitioner, particularly the submission that the transfer is in the middle of the academic year, we are of the view that Vice Chancellor should independently apply his mind on the various submissions made in the representation and pass a reasoned order. 5. Accordingly, we dispose of the Writ Petition directing the Vice Chancellor to consider Annexure P-4, representation on merits and pass a speaking order, adverting to the submissions made in the representation, ignoring Annexure R-5, communication. Till orders are 3 passed as above and communicated to the petitioner, the interim order passed by this Court on 8th April, 2010, will continue. 6. The Writ Petition is disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. Copy Dasti. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. May 13, 2010. ( Justice Deepak Gupta ), (karan) Judge.