IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9926 of 2009 SHYAM KISHOR PRASAD SINGH, SON OF LATE ALAKHDEO SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-KAIYAR, P.S.-SIKANDRA, DISTRICT- JAMUI, AT PRESENT- POSTED AS BUS DRIVER, SANJAY GANDHI INSTITUTE OF DIARY TECHNOLOGY, P,O.-B.V.C., PATNA, JAGDEO PATH, PATNA. ………….. PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE RAJENDRA AGRI.UNIVERSITY, Bihar, Pusa, Samastipur, through its Registrar. 2. The Vice Chancellor, Rajendra Agriculture university, Bihar, Pusa, Samastipur. 3. The Director, Administration, Rajendra Agriculture university, Bihar, Pusa, Samastipur. 4. The Dean, Sanjay Gandhi Institute of Dairy Technology, Jagdeo Path, Patna. 5. The Superintendent, Central Workshop, Rajendra Agriculture university, Bihar, Pusa, Samastipur. ………………… Respondents. ----------- 2. 2-Sep-09 Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for Rajendra Agriculture University, Samastipur. Petitioner is working as bus driver at Sanjay Gandhi Institute of Dairy Technology, Patna. He is driving bus bearing Registration No. B.P.S. 6972. Though posting of the petitioner was at Pusa but on account of shifting of the bus from Pusa to Patna, he was also shifted to Pusa to Patna. His grievance is that by order contained in Memo No.1025 dated 27.07.2009, the Director, Administration of Rajendra Agriculature university, Pusa, has transferred him from his present place of posting to Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Khodabandpur, Begusarai. As stated by the petitioner, on account of impugned order, he has been transferred from regular 2 establishment to a Project under respondent-university and this has caused prejudice to the service career of the petitioner. Counsel appearing for Rajendra Agriculture university while contravening the submission made by the petitioner’s counsel, has given reference of Clause 11(1)(iii) of Rajendra Agriculture University Act and Statute which relates to power, emoluments and conditions of service of the Vice Chancellor. It has been stated that according to this provision, there is ample power for transfer of an employee from one post to another in the interest of the university without adversely affecting the emoluments, status and service conditions. On account of the impugned order, simply the petitioner has been transferred from one place to another but his status, emoluments or service conditions, has not been changed. This order, in no way, is going to cause any prejudice to the service of the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision reported in 1993(1) PLJR 89 where in case of an employee of Rejendra Agriculture university, the impugned order was quashed on consideration of this fact that the employee cannot be transferred from one cadre to another without his consent. On perusal of the judgment what I find, is that the facts of the case in the reported decision were completely different from facts in the present case; Impugned order, under 3 challenge in the reported decision, related to transfer from one cadre to another cadre. Since cadre of the petitioner was changed, it was held that even though on account of said change/transfer, he is not going to suffer adversely but since there is no such provision under the Statute, such order could not have been passed. In the case of transfer of an employee of one cadre to another order, even if his status is not going to change. Such order can be passed only with the consent of the employees. It is well settled that on account of transfer from one cadre to another, the employees loses his seniority and that is the reason that unless the employee gives consent for that, it cannot be done. In the present case, on account of the impugned order, the petitioner is not going to loose his seniority. His status and emoluments is also not going to be affected. This is not an order of transfer outside petitioner’s cadre. There is ample provision under the Statute for passing a simple transfer order, in administrative exigencies. On account of impugned order, the petitioner will not suffer any loss either of status, salary or seniority. The petitioner is also not going to be prejudiced on account of this transfer order, as such there is no illegality in the impugned order. This writ application is dismissed. Akv/ (Mridula Mishra, J.)