THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.5213 OF 2010 Dated: 30.04.2010 Between: Dr. Mohd. Shujath Ali … Petitioner And Maulana AZad National Urdu University, Gachibowli, Hyderabad, rep. by its Registrar I/c. And others. .. Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.5213 OF 2010 ORDER: The petitioner herein was originally appointed as an Associate Professor / Deputy Director in the Centre for Professional Development of Urdu Medium Teachers (CPDUMT) in the 1st respondent University. Subsequently, by order dated 19.03.2007 he was transferred and posted as Deputy Director of the Centre for Urdu Language, Literature and Culture (CULLC) under the same University. While working as such, by order dated 16.02.2010 passed by the Vice-Chancellor of the 1st respondent University the petitioner was permitted to visit London Museum in the month of June, 2010 to make a comparative study of Indo-British Culture making it clear that the admissible expenditure in connection with his visit would be borne by the University and his absence would be treated as duty leave. However, by order dated 02.03.2010 the petitioner was transferred to his parent department i.e., Centre for Professional Development of Urdu Medium Teachers (CPDUMT) with immediate effect. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. It is contended by the petitioner that the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent, who was discharging the duties of the In-charge Vice-Chancellor who was away from the head-quarters availing leave due to health problems from 1.3.2010 to 5.3.2010 was without jurisdiction apart from being arbitrary and illegal. It is also contended that as the 3rd respondent was only allowed to perform the duties with regard to the routine administrative and academic functions of the University, the impugned order repatriating the petitioner to his parent department which was in the nature of a policy decision was without jurisdiction. It is also alleged that the impugned order was passed by the 3rd respondent intentionally to prevent the petitioner from visiting London Museum to study and make efforts for the development of Indo-British Culture. Separate counter-affidavits have been filed on behalf of the 1st respondent University and the 2nd respondent – Head of the Department of Hindi - who is impleaded as a respondent by name. In the counter-affidavit filed by S.M. Rahmathulla, Registrar of the University, on behalf of the 1st respondent University, it is explained that the 1st respondent University was established by an Act of Parliament (Act No.2 of 1997). As per the Act, the President of India is the visitor of the University and it has a Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor and Pro Vice-Chancellor. It is further explained that as Prof. A.M. Pathan, who was the Vice-Chancellor resigned from the office, the Pro Vice-Chancellor - Prof. K.R. Iqbal Ahmed was appointed as the Vice- Chancellor In-charge on 30.03.2009 as a stop gap arrangement till a search committee is constituted by the Ministry of H.R.D. to appoint the Vice-Chancellor. While so, Prof. K.R.Iqbal Ahmed – Vice- Chancellor In-charge proceeded on medical leave and therefore the duties of the Vice-Chancellor were entrusted to the 3rd respondent - Prof. Khalid Syed, the senior most professor in the University. It is further stated that the writ petitioner, who was initially appointed as Deputy Director in CPDUMT was transferred as Deputy Director of CULLC vide proceedings dated 19.11.2007 on administrative grounds by the then Vice-Chancellor. Subsequently, under the impugned order dated 2.3.2010 the petitioner was transferred to his parent department purely on administrative grounds which was well within the powers conferred on the 3rd respondent. While specifically denying the various other allegations made by the petitioner, it is contended that against the impugned order an alternative remedy of appeal is available under Act No.2 of 1997 and without exhausting the said alternative remedy, the petitioner cannot maintain this writ petition. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was originally appointed as Deputy Director of CPDUMT. A perusal of the proceedings dated 19.11.2007 shows that on administrative grounds he was transferred and was posted as Deputy Director of CULLC. Under the impugned order he was again transferred to his parent department i.e., CPDUMT on administrative grounds. The law is well-settled that transfer is an incident of service and therefore judicial interference is warranted only in rare cases where the order was found to be without jurisdiction or contrary to law or vitiated by mala fides. Except vague allegations sought to be attributed to the 3rd respondent, absolutely no material could be placed before this Court to show that the impugned order is vitiated by mala fides. It is also not the case of the petitioner that the impugned order, which was only an inter-departmental transfer, was contrary to law. Therefore, the only question that requires consideration by this Court is whether the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent is without jurisdiction. Admittedly the impugned order has been passed by the 3rd respondent herein, who is discharging the duties of the Vice- Chancellor In-charge, who went on leave on health grounds. The material available on record shows that by order dated 26.02.2010 the Vice-Chancellor In-charge directed that the 3rd respondent shall perform the duties of the Vice-Chancellor in accordance with the provisions of Act 2 of 1997 as stipulated in Section 2 (7) of the Statute with regard to the routine administrative and academic functioning of the University except in cases where policy decisoions are required from 1.3.2010 to 5.3.2010 i.e, during his leave period. The impugned order came to be passed on 2.3.2010 by the 3rd respondent in exercise of the powers entrusted to him under the above said order dated 26.02.2010. It is to be noticed that as per Section 11 (2) of Act 2 of 1997 the Vice-Chancellor shall be the principal Executive and Academic Officer of the University and shall exercise general supervision and control over the affairs of the University. Section 12 of Act 2 of 1997 provides for appointment of a Pro Vice-Chancellor and he shall exercise such powers and perform such duties as may be prescribed by the Statutes. The Schedule to the Act 2 of 1997 contains the Statutes of the University made in terms of Section 26 of the Act 2 of 1997. Section 2 (7) of the Statute provides that if the Office of a Vice-Chancellor becomes vacant due to death / resignation or otherwise, the Pro Vice- Chancellor shall perform the duties of the Vice-Chancellor. The proviso further made it clear that if the Pro Vice-Chancellor is not available, the senior most professor shall perform the duties of the Vice-Chancellor until a new Vice-Chancellor assumes office or until the existing Vice-Chancellor attends to the duties of his office as the case may be. Section 2(7) of the Statute may be extracted hereunder: S. 2(7) If the office of the Vice-Chancellor becomes vacant due to death, resignation or otherwise, or if he is unable to perform his duties due to ill health or any other cause, the Pro-Vice-Chancellor shall perform the duties of the Vice-Chancellor: Provided that if the Pro-Vice-Chancellor is not available, the senior-most professor shall perform the duties of the Vice-Chancellor until a new Vice- Chancellor assumes office or until the existing Vice- Chancellor attends to the duties of his office as the case may be. In the light of the above provision and in view of the undisputed fact that the 3rd respondent is the senior most professor, he was rightly entrusted the duties of the Vice-Chancellor under the order dated 26.02.2010. Section 38 of the Statute which deals with delegation of power also substantiates the powers conferred on the 3rd respondent under the order dated 26.02.2010. Admittedly the said order dated 26.02.2010 has not been questioned by the petitioner but it is only contended that as the impugned transfer was in the nature of a policy decision, it was beyond the power conferred on the 3rd respondent. It is true that as per the order dated 26.02.2010 the 3rd respondent cannot deal with the cases where policy decisions are required. However, the impugned order transferring the petitioner to the department of CPDUMT under no circumstances can be termed as a policy decision. Merely because the impugned order would result in preventing the petitioner from visiting London Museum, the impugned order cannot be construed as a policy decision. It is also relevant to note that the petitioner’s transfer to CULLC on 19.3.2007 was not on deputation as contended by the petitioner but it was a regular inter departmental transfer on administrative grounds. Therefore, the impugned order is nothing but a simple administrative order which is well within the powers conferred on the 3rd respondent. Hence, the impugned order cannot be held to be illegal or without jurisdiction. Moreover, a remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner under Section 33 of the Act 2 of 1997 which provides an appeal to the Executive Council against the decision of any officer or authority of the University. As the petitioner failed to exhaust the said alternative remedy, on that ground also the writ petition is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition which is devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 30.04.2010 gbs