IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.838 of 2011 1. KAMESHWAR SINGH DARBHANGA SANSKRIT UNIVERSITY THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR, DARBHANGA. 2. THE VICE-CHANCELLOR, KAMESHWAR SINGH DARBHANGA SANSKRIT UNIVERSITY, DARBHANGA. 3. REGISTRAR, KAMESHWAR SINGH DARBHANGA SANSKRIT UNIVERSITY, DARBHANGA. ……………………………RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS. Versus 1. DR.HARI NARAYAN THAKUR, SON OF LATE VIDYA NAND THAKUR, RESIDENT OF SANKAT MOCHANDHAM, HARAHI WEST, P.O. LALBAGH, P.S. L.N.M.U., DARBHANGA, DISTRICT-DARBHANGA. …………………………PETITIONER……RESPONDENT. 2. THE CHANCELLOR OF KAMESHWAR SINGH DARBHANGA SANSKRIT UNIVERSITY HAVING ITS OFFICE AT RAJ BHAWAN, PATNA. ………………………RESPONDENT……RESPONDENT. ----------- 2. 18.5.2011. Heard the parties in respect of I.A. No.3721 of 2011 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. For the reasons mentioned in the said I.A., the delay of about 46 days in preferring this appeal is condoned. The I.A. stands allowed. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the Respondent No.1, the writ petitioner. The order under appeal dated 7.2.2011 passed in C.W.J.C. No.20709 of 2010 is an interim order, whereby the 2 writ petition has been admitted for hearing, Rule has been made returnable by three months and until further order, the operation of the transfer order contained in Annexure-‘12’ to the writ petition in so far as it relates to the writ petitioner has been stayed. On behalf of the appellant, Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University and its officials a grievance has been raised that since the writ petition challenges an order of transfer which relates to nine Principals of different colleges under the University and was passed for educational and administrative reasons, no interim order of stay should have been passed because it will also amount to stay of transfer of a person who was posted in place of the writ petitioner who is not a party. According to the learned counsel for the appellants that person, Dr. Vinay Kumar Singh, had joined the post in question where the writ petitioner wants to continue on 6.1.2011. But this fact has been disputed by writ petitioner and it has been submitted that the joining report is ante dated. The other grievance of the appellants is that the order of transfer passed by the Vice Chancellor is within his jurisdiction as provided under Section 10(14) of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 as amended by Section 68 3 of Act, 1982 and the guidelines governing such transfer issued by the Chancellor require the transferee to join the transferred place and then file an appeal or representation before the Chancellor for consideration on merits. But the writ petition has been entertained ignoring statutory alternative remedy before the Chancellor who can examine the correctness and legality of the order of transfer. The interim order amounts to virtually allowing the claim by enabling the writ petitioner to continue on the post in question indefinitely because writ petitions admitted for hearing are pending in this Court for over a decade. On the other hand, learned counsel for the writ petitioner has submitted that the order at hand transferring many Principals was passed by the Vice Chancellor before his retirement without good reasons and it violates guidelines issued by the Chancellor which are contained in Annexures-5, 6 and 7 to the writ petition. In reply, learned counsel for the appellants has tried to distinguish those circulars and instructions on facts and has submitted that they do not apply to the case of the writ petitioner who has been transferred for administrative reasons as well. 4 Although, the parties wanted this Court to decide the matter on merits, we are of the considered view that in the facts of the case, the statutory alternative remedy available before the Chancellor must be availed by the writ petitioner. Further, since the challenge is to an order of transfer, it will not be in the interest of justice to keep the writ petition pending for hearing with an interim order of stay when the transfer order involves other Principals as well. The Chancellor is competent under law to look into the legality and correctness of the transfer order in respect of the writ petitioner on all the grounds that have been raised before us. Hence, it will be proper and just that the matter be directed to be heard by the Chancellor in exercise of his power under the Act as well as under the guidelines. The order under appeal is, therefore, set aside and the writ petitioner is given liberty to pursue his representation already filed before the Chancellor before invoking the writ jurisdiction. Liberty is also granted to the writ petitioner that, if he is so advised, he may file further representation or memorandum of appeal to supplement the earlier representation, within two weeks from today. In such representation or memorandum of appeal, the writ petitioner 5 may raise all the points available to him under law. The Chancellor is requested to give opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties and dispose of the representation/appeal of the writ petitioner on merits at an early date, preferably, within eight weeks from the date of first appearance before the Chancellor. It is made clear that we are not in favour of staying the transfer order and it will be open for the Chancellor to pass orders as per law. No further coercive steps shall be taken against the writ petitioner till the matter is considered by the Chancellor. The writ petition and this appeal stand disposed of. P.S. (Shiva Kirti Singh, J) ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J)